Oughtn't that second "dissent" be put in "scare" quotes?
why, yes!
Just FYI:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n06/sai...06/
said01_.html
This is Said's LRB review of Hall's Civilizing Subjects.
thx very much 'phonse.
Matt, I disabled comments to my thread because, as you noted, they’d grown vituperative. You obviously believe that I’m responsible for that, having charged me with making false and lazy accusations. I don’t think that charge is accurate.
What I did was merely to repost some of the links you put up, with the briefest of possible comments. Let’s review them.
Mark himself has acknowledged that poor draftsmanship might be responsible for my understanding of his “Breaking News” comment. That seems fair. Here’s why: Mark first describes a Theory monster, then advertises for something to catch it and offers a reward. It would be reasonable to suppose that what would catch a Theory monster wouldn’t be Theory itself. The explanation Mark posted to my thread today amounts to saying something like: “bear loose, looking for someone to catch bear” and then responding when an animal control person shows up: “oh, sorry, I was hoping for a bear to catch that bear.” It just doesn’t make sense by normal usage.
Alphonse van Worden gets steamed up over a minor distinction. Let’s accept her pedagogy, though, and read her as she wishes to be read. Now what’s she saying? Only that critics of Theory are bedfellows of antisemites (and implicitly driven by the same illicit and fearful motives). Put it this way: would it have seemed less offensive to you if I had written: “Alphonse van Worden says critics of Theory are fellow travelers of anti-Semitism”? I hope not, because the purpose of van Worden’s rhetoric is clearly the same either way—to taint critics of Theory with the vilest of motivations. Had she not wanted to make this intimation, there would have been no reason to bring up Wagner or Judaism.
So far as I know Jodi Dean hasn’t objected to my characterization of her comments. That’s wise because here’s what she said:
“Precisely those folks who rail against the failure of theory to say anything new bring up old arguments in a new setting to sound fresh, to seem alternative. in the 90s, they really sounded like racists, homophobes, mysognynists. In the new climate, prepared by and through the culture wars, they sound (at least to themselves) as refreshing, conservative in a new-improved way.”
Note that there’s one preposition here—“they.” The racists, homophobes, misogynists of the 80s _are_ the critics of Theory of the 90s. The apparent difference between them is that they’ve learned a clever and gimmicky (“new-improved”) way to present themselves. Let’s say that, like Mark’s post, there’s just some careless drafting here and Jodi doesn’t mean to say that I and people like myself are racists. Even if so, she casts guilt by association here, and, like van Worden, she does it with the most serious of charges. Accusations of racism, et al. should be handled carefully. Jodi tosses them off here, apparently without considering their seriousness.
I think you’ll see if you look at my posts that I’m as interested in spirite
(continued from above)
I think you’ll see if you look at my posts that I’m as interested in spirited and serious argument as anyone. I weary though of having intimations of bad motives, reprehensible characteristics, and inescapable, noxious associations tossed my way. I’ve criticized some of your comments and some of those of your fellow Long Sundayans. (Jodi and CR might remember that I visited a few of their posts and made challenges and engaged in discussion, and I’ve just had a fairly substantial exchange with Adam.) I have made an effort to avoid invective, though. I don’t believe that I’ve yet questioned anyone’s motives. I don’t think I’ve expressed weariness or exasperation or boredom with your subject or your argument (with one possible exception I can recall). I’ve certainly never accused anyone of objectively serving the interests of some nefarious cause (as, of course, I could do if I were inclined to be like Sokal, or Chomsky, or Eagleton, or Katha Pollitt.) If I wished I could engage in flame war, and I’m confident that I could give as good as I get. I’m not much interested in that, though, and I’ll be glad to promise to continue to make an effort to avoid incendiary accusations if you will as well.
You might note as well, Matt, that as Adam pointed out, I did not delete any comments. I wanted to put a stop to a discussion spiraling into flame war without in fact erasing anyone's views. Unfortunately, there's no way I know of to show comments on the jump page when new commments have been disabled.
Hi Sean, I did notice that after Adam mentioned, though I doubt most other people will.
It's late so I hope you'll forgive me if I respond too quickly now. Some of this will be flippant, hopefully not too much to pierce thick skin. Let me just say thank you for the response, and for the gesture of good faith in proclaiming yourself opposed to polemic. I too, have little interest in "incendiary accusations." You seem to imply this is what "we" are about, but I think anyone familiar with the discussions of the last few days (and months), and with me personally, will know better. Have I made a particular incendiary accusation? If so, I'd like to hear about it.
In any case, here would be one response--again, too quickly:
You obviously believe that I�m responsible for that
No, not necessarily for that. Come on now.
poor draftsmanship
I thought it was a hilarious post, that one. But if you failed to appreciate the context in which it arrived, I could see how one could be offended. If, that is, one happened to feel particularly wedded to certain stakes associated with the use of this word, "Theory."
There are some serious charges, I agree, but I think it's safe to say they're not levelled just at you, or at you personally. They are descriptive charges encompassing a larger context than yourself, or even this anthology. To respond to them as personal charges, as I mentioned to Scott in that long thread on CS, seems fundamentally out of place to me.
Jodi, at least in that quote you rather ungenerously abstract, seems to be saying there's a difference between the 90's (not the 80s) and what's happening now, broadly, with such an anthology (as just one example). With that I happen to agree; the axe being ground here, the familiar terrain being re-hashed, smacks almost of a nostalgia for the debates of the 90s over postmodernism. The very idea of nostalgia for the 90s is mildly amusing in itself.
As Amardeep mentions in her post linked to above, such an anthology cannot reasonably be expected to contextualize fully these debates, which are not new. Well, maybe not. But I don't think it's particularly wise to accuse "us" of responding to this book unfairly (much less to yourself) when we all pretty much admit we haven't read it well (and probably less well if at all whatever it is you may have written). You'll notice that we're not discussing particular passages from either the anthology or any of your posts. In light of which, it is interesting, I think, that both you and Holbo respond immediately as if personally affronted.
You wish not to be associated or "tarred" with the brush it is suggested is out there already (let's assume that saying one just "found it" that way would probably not be very helpful). Very well, how, specifically, would you distance yourself from the forces of framing, of institutional and cultural politics, that are described in these posts you accuse of accusing you (other than flat-out denial, of course, for if that is a
(ugh_)
...for if that is all that is warranted, if there is *no* truth to anything "we" say concerning historical contexts, institutional dynamics, cultural politics, and various agendas "smuggled in" etc. other than entirely false personal allegations, then I'm not sure why you bother showing up with ruffled feathers in the first place.)
I'm fairly certain you misread AVW yet again.
Finally, let me just apologize for the piss-poor duct-tape commenting system over here, hardly up to snuff, but we get by. I suspect others may wish to respond directly (it's a bit odd being asked to defend other people as if they weren't more capable themselves), but I would be interested in any further thoughts of yours especially, needless to say, at any time.
Matt, you write: "But I don't think it's particularly wise to accuse "us" of responding to this book unfairly (much less to yourself) when we all pretty much admit we haven't read it well (and probably less well if at all whatever it is you may have written)."
You also write: "Here, for those googling in especially, is a collection of links detailing the blogosphere's reception of Theory's Empire, and more specifically the reception of the The Valve's reception of Theory's Empire."
So this collection of links is about the reception of the Valve's reception of TE. Is it really unfair to ask you to read something that you're responding to?
Matt again (sorry to quote this much): "Very well, how, specifically, would you distance yourself from the forces of framing, of institutional and cultural politics, that are described in these posts you accuse of accusing you (other than flat-out denial, of course, for if that is all that is warranted, if there is *no* truth to anything "we" say concerning historical contexts, institutional dynamics, cultural politics, and various agendas "smuggled in" etc. other than entirely false personal allegations"
Jodi's argument amounts to a claim that a text is defined by its context; its content is unimportant. Since context can not be changed (according to what you're saying above, a flat denial won't do it), nothing that anyone can write that criticizes Theory in a contemporary American context can escape this context. Therefore, it's not a personal accusation, it's an impersonal accusation; Jodi can go on saying that she wasn't directing it at anyone at The Valve in particular because she really isn't directing it at anyone in particular. She doesn't need to read anything, because she's already defined it.
This contextual argument is an exact cognate of the right wing argument that literary studies is dominated by Marxists, tenured radicals, indoctrinators etc. etc. whose ideas are predetermined by the context of "the sixties" and their tenure. Therefore none of their ideas have to be actually engaged with.
Matt,
I’ve offered you a long explanation of the reasons for my views; you’ve responded with more psychologizing and motivation talk and guilt by association.
Have you made an incendiary accusation? Well, you only rarely make accusations—though calling my post lazy and dishonest would certainly count—and usually rely on intimation. On more than one occasion, however, you have quite directly said that criticisms of Theory are tarred by anti-intellectualism and a conservative assault on intellectual freedom. Yes, those are incendiary remarks. I’m grateful that you haven’t said yourself that critics of Theory are bedfellows of anti-semites, racists, homophobes, and misogynists. But such comments have been made by writers you defend here, and, yes, they too are incendiary.
In this last response, you again make that suggestion that I am a fellow traveler of nefarious forces by asking how I distance myself from the forces of framing. You don’t seem to grasp what’s offensive about the use of guilt by association. (This is ironic, given how cruelly the tactic has historically been used against the left. You might note in this context that when you ask why I get my feathers ruffled if there’s no truth to accusations of fellow traveling that you use one of McCarthyism’s prime tactics. I.e., hey, if you’re not a red, why get so upset?) But the reasons to resist guilt by association are pretty obvious: it’s unethical and, more importantly, intellectually reductive.
(continued from above)
Since that doesn’t appear to be evident to you, let me try to explain. The reasons I have no obligation to distance myself from a rightest agenda are: 1) The suggestion that I do have such an obligation reduces complex phenomena to simplistic ones. It obscures the possibility that people with different beliefs and interests can coincidentally object to the same thing in favor of melodramatic simplicities in which you’re either on a good or bad side of things. 2) It likewise casts aside the possibility that I can believe the things I do for good and honest reasons.
The masters of these kinds of rhetorical tactics are the likes of David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens. Their examples are worthy of being avoided. Consider some hypothetical possibilities. If I were like David Horowitz, I could ask you: Matt, just how do you distance yourself from Ward Churchill? Or, I could say: Matt, you’re on the left aren’t you? How do you distance yourself from the show trials, the great famine, the gulag, the reeducation camps, Pol Pot, etc. That would be a stupid, meanspirited, reductive and solely polemical question, so I’m not going to ask it. Let’s choose some less incendiary examples. I could say: Matt, you acknowledge that there’s a lot of bad theory out there, yet you defend theory from its critics. How do you distance yourself from the context of stupidity.
Another example. In one of her comments, Jodi makes an interesting remark about the way “context produces the event of the book.” Consider that phrase for a moment. From a historical perspective, it’s always possible to look at the way books emerge out of contexts. But in immediate debate, the usual protocol is to put that kind of genetic argument aside. Why? Because it robs the writer of the chance to be responsible for what she says. Consider another example in this light. Jodi wrote a book about aliens and conspiracy theories, I believe. The book came out at a time when talk about alien possession of various kinds was prominent and when it was often associated with anti-intellectual assaults on science and racist separatist movements. If I were so inclined, I could say: look, Jodi, you can’t affect the context in which your book appears and the way it’s used. How do you disassociate yourself from the superstitious wingnuts who dismiss the scientific evidence for global warming and evolution? How do you distance yourself from Tim McVeigh? Those would be cheap and incendiary questions and they would also be deeply anti-intellectual. Though more exteme, however, they’re not different in form from the question you’ve asked me. (And they are certainly no more incendiary than the way van Worden uses anti-semitism.)
(continued from above)
The fact that you have not read TE with care or some of the comments I or others have posted is evident. That’s not the mark in your favor you seem to believe. Why? Well, first, it shows something that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the comments that you link: that you and some others feel able to dismiss a book as a cultural or political phenomenon without actually reading it. That is surprising, and I’m not sure why the failure to read an object of debate does not seem like an impediment to serious argument to you. Surely, you can see that if I said, “I don’t have to read Derrida, I already know that he’s aligned with the forces of irrationality and superstition,” that I’d be doing something illegitimate. Why do you think the same standards don’t apply to you?
Second, you avowedly posted the set of links I noted as a response to TE “and more specifically [to] the reception of the The Valve's reception of Theory's Empire.” So, yes, to use your terminology, you personally framed those comments as responses to me (and others at the Valve). You have also endorsed those links as “thoughtful” and a contribution to an honest and open debate. Given that frame, it would be strange if I didn’t see those comments as directed at the beliefs I hold.
(continued from above)
You seem to think that it’s ok to level the nastiest of accusations so long as you don’t mention an individual by name. I can’t see why. Your reasoning here is the equivalent to saying: some of my best friends are x. Personal exceptions from group accusations don’t undermine the force of group accusations. Jodi did say that the people who criticize theory are continuing the agenda of the people who were racists et al in the 80s. It would give me no comfort if she were to say, “oh, I don’t think you’re personally a racist. I just think people who think like you do are racists.” (She does say that there is a difference between the 90s and the 80s; the difference she suggests quite clearly [new improved] is that her opponents are now too clever to embarrassingly state their beliefs. She also says that there is a direct continuity.)
You say I’ve ungenerously abstracted Jodi. How exactly? By actually quoting her at some length? By pointing out that she feels free to toss around strong accusations. Where precisely do I misconstrue what she says? You likewise suggest that I’ve misread Alphonse van Worden, but can’t be bothered to explain how. So, show me, where’s the mistake.
Well, thanks for piling on, fellas. You'd think all those posts linked to above were no more than "hymns in ad hominem" judging from your comments, and that I am guilty by association of every worst excess therein.
May I suggest for the lay reader that each of those posts above is well worth reading, precisely as the frame they suggest is a necessary antidote to rosy results you'll get from Google (which doesn't pull up any of Michael Bérubé's posts, I've noticed, for example), but also as they are all indeed quite thoughtful. But in particular for a more accurate sense of the discussion for the moment you may go here. There may be a future post on LS compiling all these points that remain largely unaddressed by the anti-Theory position at some point soon. Several of the authors of those posts above, needless to say, in fact have read the anthology in question and take issue with specific essays.
Also, and before I forget, there was a bit of personal quoting on "this side" (you two do seem intent, and contra Scott Eric Kaufman, on maintaining "sides" here at all costs) insofar as John Holbo's rather revealing claims about a "wrong philosophic turn" etc. may have been mentioned. "We" await his reponse, as promised.
If I may turn to more specific points now, Sean writes:
On more than one occasion, however, you have quite directly said that criticisms of Theory are tarred by anti-intellectualism and a conservative assault on intellectual freedom.
Really? I have? Never without careful qualification I don't think. Do you flat-out deny that criticisms of "Theory" exist in a historical continuum of attacks on Marxists, Feminists, French thought, etc. at all? Your naiveté is touching, but not honest.
As for how do I distance myself from a culture of stupidity...? Well, I have this thing called a blog here, maybe you should read it sometime. The hysterical leap into Horowitz and McCarthy analogies is just too silly to warrant response, or at least the kind of response you seem to think is warranted.
To be very clear, for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between calling someone anti-intellectual and merely pointing out, just describing, a context (The Norton, say) and culture in
which a book may be responding, in which it may be profitting, rhetorically, marketing itself, etc. When such contexts are a priori ignored and then the book is used as a launching pad for an attack on "squatters" and a whole "wrong philosophic turn", well that strikes me as irresponsible, yes.
I'm happy to allow Jodi and Alphonse to defend themselves, if they see it as at all necessary.
Is it really unfair to ask you to read something that you're responding to?
Not at all, and several of those people above have. Anyway you're welcome to buy me a copy.
Jodi's argument amounts to a claim that a text is defined by its context; its content is unimportant.
That's quite a leap you're making. In all fairness I think Jodi was specifically querying the "eventness" of this "book event."
Given that frame, it would be strange if I didn’t see those comments as directed at the beliefs I hold.
Given that frame, it would be strange if you didn't see the above collection of links as directed at the framework you among others have deliberately encouraged. I have no idea why you use the word, "beliefs" here.
When I say:
Your naiveté is touching, but not honest.
I do not seek to deny the possibility of speaking, though not very carefully or responsibly perhaps, about a self-proclaiming entity "Theory." Whether this term is useful of not, given the context, give the rhetorical uses to which it is being put (on both "sides") is another matter.
Matt, you have now called me dishonest, humorless, hysterical, and irresponsible. Is it possible for you to leave the ad hominem aside and engage in argument?
You ask whether you have ever tarred criticism of Theory with the brush of anti-intellectualism and conservatism without careful qualification. Here is a single quotation (others could be found) from one of your posts to the Valve (to the Bill the Butcher post):
"There is indeed a rather long history of anti-intellectualism (particularly in America) that the anti-theory position (as fortressed by the very existence of this book) seems happy to at least make use of. . . . [T]he burden of proof is on defenders of this book to show how it might amount to much more than conservative fodder."
Please show me the careful qualification here.
You suggest that Rich and I have accused you of guilt by association. (We posted at pretty much the same time and independently.) But you don't seem to understand what the term means. I do not endorse the views of conservatives and anti-intellectuals and in fact am politically and intellectually opposed to them. So it is both inaccurate and an insult to accuse me of them. By contrast, you have specifically endorsed the views that you link to above. Presumably, therefore, you would not be insulted by being associated with them. Can you not recognize a difference between these two situations?
More specifically, you have endorsed the views of Alphonse van Worden and Jodi Dean and, more, accused me of mischaracterizing them. So there is no injustice to you or them in asking you to defend that charge. Not doing so amounts, again, to tossing accusations that you are not prepared to defend.
Yes, I deny there is a continuum. This is an elementary point that you seem unable to understand. Not all criticisms of a target need to share motivations or to be understood as occupying the same position. There are, for instance, marxist as well as fascist complaints against liberal democracy. That does not mean that marxists are on a continuum with fascists. Do you think otherwise?
Matt: "Well, thanks for piling on, fellas."
Matt, you have this recurring tendency to dramatize your sense of victimhood. You asked for responses here. One response by each of two people does not a pile-on make, even if Sean had to divide his among three comments due to the limitations of the comment software.
More psychologizing: "you two do seem intent, and contra Scott Eric Kaufman, on maintaining "sides" here at all costs"
Matt, I am not on some "side" with Sean McCann because I happen to agree with him on certain very limited issues. Nor are my and Sean's responses some sort of indistinguishable mass. Your answer quotes my response and his in turn without marking which quote is from who, so that I have trouble making out which part I'm supposed to be responsible for.
I can pick out two responses that seem to be directed to me. First, you say that I'm welcome to buy you a copy (of _Theory's Empire_, presumably). I should point out that everything that members of The Valve has written is available for free on The Valve. You have here a collection of links that is at least in part about The Valve's "blog event", and yet the people responding say they haven't read it, preferring to talk about its context. Shouldn't you, perhaps, actually read the relatively short number of blog posts involved? Berube did, and in fact fully participated in the blog event, and he seems to feel that it was useful. Your refusal to read this material seems to contribute to a belief that The Valve "Theory's Empire" blog event is in some way part of Theory's Empire the anthology, rather than (in part) a more general use of this anthology to consider various theory and anti-theory positions.
Second, you say that Jodi was 'specifically querying the "eventness" of this "book event."', not reductively saying that content is subsumed by context. I agree that's what she says she's doing; I don't agree that it's true. She starts out with a few generalities about academic production and ends with an analysis of context that provides no mode in which content can escape it. It's a full Eagletonian maneuver in which you don't actually need to read texts, all you need to do is generalize about the conditions of their production, and you know all that you need to know about them.
Sean,
I'm pretty sure I've endorsed nothing, other than to describe as "thoughtful" several posts. To attribute to me the full range of views expressed above is ...not correct.
I'm willing to concede the grounds about "conservative fodder" for now (I mean, having not read the book in question!) which was something of a deliberate provocation and perhaps not all that useful I'll admit.
I do not endorse the views of conservatives and anti-intellectuals and in fact am politically and intellectually opposed to them.
Glad to hear it. I never suspected otherwise, but if you read me as implying something so callous as that I can see why you might be upset.
Look, the questions about how seriously to take context are important, about what defines that context, etc. are important. I'm glad we're having this discussion.
Not all criticisms of a target need to share motivations or to be understood as occupying the same position.
Absolutely, I agree. But when a criticism seems happy to make use of certain motivations and contexts, in part by not qualifying or distancing itself carefully enough, then I think that is irresponsible. Do you disagree? Is so, why? Such a qualification needn't be entirely disabling, distracting or all-consuming in my book. Would it be in yours?
Hello Rich,
I'm not sure how to respond at this point except to repeat myself.
You have here a collection of links that is at least in part about The Valve's "blog event", and yet the people responding say they haven't read it, preferring to talk about its context. Shouldn't you, perhaps, actually read the relatively short number of blog posts involved?
I have read most of them, in fact. But I'm not going to generalise about them right here. You may think (or in Sean's case "believe") that's what this post is already doing. I would suggest you re-read the links as well as their comment threads. Part of my interest, it may as well be said, in setting up these links is to hint at another, larger context, in which this "event" of yours is taking place. If this helps to facilitate discussion across knee-jerk boundaries, then it will have been a useful post. In fact, I think it has been already, if you'll return to that thread on Charlotte Street or re-visit the posts by Scott.
Berube did [read the posts], and in fact fully participated in the blog event, and he seems to feel that it was useful.
As with Jodi, I'm going to go out on a limb here and let Bérubé defend himself if/as he sees fit.
Rich, you write:
...maneuver, in which you don't actually need to read texts, all you need to do is generalize about the conditions of their production, and you know all that you need to know about them.
You seem to with to attribute a vulgar sort of Marxism here; I would insist you take a more careful look.
As for the general need to "actually read the texts" I couldn't agree more. This is why I think, indeed as I mentioned on Jodi's site, that Adam and Michael admirably side-step all these inflamatory questions by doing just precisely that. However nor do I think the questions about context, beginning maybe with the rather bizarre cover of the anthology itself, are entirely unimportant.
...or irrelevant.
Finally, if either of you wish to take issue with a particular post by Jodi, Alphonse or Mark, why don't both of you join in the ongoing conversations taking place there, there and there? I'm sure your perspectives would be welcome.
My goodness. There are lots of comments here. And a number that mention my name and posts, and book dealing with alien abduction. I'll try to respond, but will no doubt miss stuff. I'm not trying to avoid answering, there's just a lot there. Also, I responsed to some of this stuff already at icite.
Context: not closed, so not neutrally describable. Any description is an intervention, partial, and, when the present is at issue, part of the very setting it describes. I don't think that a text is defined by its context. I do think that events need to be understood in terms of the context that makes them events.
Someone mentions Aliens in America--this book got a bunch of attention when it came out, because it was part of a context; people were all in to talking about aliens, the 50th anniversary of Roswell, Heaven's Gate, the late John Mack, from Harvard, having just published a book on his work with abductees. So, my book got attention for this. And, in fact I was attacked resoundly in the London Review of Books and the NY Rev of Books precisely because I didn't criticize the UFO community for its anti-scientism; nor did I criticize conspiracy theory for being wing nuts. On the contrary, I argued that researchers within the UFO community understand what they do as scientifically valid and reproduceable research. And, given the shift from sightings to experience reports, this gets very complex and tricky. How exactly does one make distinctions here? It continues to strike me that the abduction folks resoundly trash the false-memory people as total whack jobs. The only way I can distinguish my position in that book from, say, the anti-evolution and global warming people is by saying that I don't take a position on the abductees truth claims. I'm describing their discourse. Which I could just as easily do with the anti-global warming types. In fact, the sort of phenomena I was describing in that book are much more prevalent and dangerous and mainstream today. Shoot, the argument for WMDs is the same one used for UFOS: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Matt,
Note a difference here. I claimed that you tarred criticism of theory with the charge of anti-intellectualism and serving a conservative agenda. You denied the charge and asked for evidence. I provided it. You now respond with some foggy prose whose point isn't clear. (What does it mean to concede "for now"? Are you going to change your mind later and again deny making any such accusations? Why does it matter that it was "a delibererate provocation"? Does it in your view justify intimations of guilt by association to say that they were deliberate? Is it not possible for you to acknowledge simply that you in fact made precisely the suggestion that you later denied making?)
Now let's consider your accusations. You have said that I made a lazy and dishonest post (and went on to add that I am naive, hysterical, humorless, etc.). You seem to feel differently, but I regard accusations of laziness and dishonesty as being pretty serious charges (just as I do accusations of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.). I've denied that anything I said about Mark, Jodi, or Alphonse van Worden is lazy or dishonest, and I've presented you with an argument to substantiate that view. Your response is to suggest that I take it up with them elsewhere.
I have no desire, however, to discuss matters with them elsewhere. (I regard van Worden in particular as being beneath contempt, as I do anyone who carelessly tosses around the rhetoric of anti-semitism.) What I want to know is how you justify your claims of laziness and dishonesty. If you continue to believe this is true of me, you have some obligation to present evidence. If you no longer believe it, then the decent thing to do would be to retract.
There are some things that you just can't have both ways, although your prose seems determined to obscure the point. Having made the charge that criticism of theory serves anti-intellectualism and conservatism, for instance, you now briefly back off the implication, saying you can understand why I would find such a suggestion obnoxious. Then you return to it yet again, suggesting once more that I have an obligation to prove my bona fides (suggesting that criticism that does not actively distance itself from some other criticism of the same object necessarily "make[s] use" of it). (You seem unable to see why this is both an obnoxious and absurd demand. But note, it's structurally the same demand as the one supporters of the Iraq war made when they charged all antiwar protesters to distinguish themselves from ANSWER. It's likewise the same demand that McCarthyism made when it required all liberals and leftists to distinguish themselves from Stalinism.)
What you do in this last post, may I point out, is quite similar to the tactic you took when half-endorsing the accusations of RIPope against Holbo. You don't want to acknowledge saying anything too nasty directly, but you are willing to allow innuendo and indirection t
(continued from above)
What you do in this last post, may I point out, is quite similar to the tactic you took when half-endorsing the accusations of RIPope against Holbo. You don't want to acknowledge saying anything too nasty directly, but you are willing to allow innuendo and indirection to serve the same purpose. At the same time, you accuse others of dishonesty and irresponsibility.
Barring fresh, unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos, this will be my last post here. I've already spent too much time trying to get you to concede to basic norms of decency and argument. You appear not to want to take that route. I find this disappointing because I'd like to see a serious argument about some of the texts and issues at the heart of the TE dispute. (Note, e.g., the long post about Derrida I recently put up.) But, as I've said repeatedly, I don't want to be accused of some obnoxious framework that someone cooks up rather than engage with my arguments. You appear to be unwilling to leave that tactic aside.
Matt: "You may think (or in Sean's case "believe") that's what this post is already doing."
This was in response to quoted text that I wrote; why am I being conflated with Sean again? Normally I wouldn't bother pointing this out, but in general you don't seem to be careful enough about this.
"Part of my interest, it may as well be said, in setting up these links is to hint at another, larger context, in which this "event" of yours is taking place."
Once again: replying to me, yet the event is "of yours"? As a commenter, I am no more a part of The Valve than I am a part of your blog.
I don't think that your list of links post is in itself a generalization about The Valve. You have made many such generalizations in comments in various places, however. The reason that I'm commenting here on them here is that because when the thread at The Valve was closed down, you seemed to feel that you didn't get the chance to reply, and (responding to a suggestion from Sean) you invited people here.
About the context argument: you've agreed with important parts of Jodi's explication of it, and referred to it here. By the use of the word "Eagletonian" I don't mean vulgar Marxism in particular, but any analysis that claims that a text is reduceable to its historicization of one sort or another. You keep hinting about this larger context -- what, in particular, should I know about it? That right-wingers who attack Theory exist? I know this. That others beyond those on The Valve have also commented on Theory's Empire, and on general theory/anti-theory questions? I know this also.
"However nor do I think the questions about context, beginning maybe with the rather bizarre cover of the anthology itself, are entirely unimportant."
You know, this is a weird form of guilt by association, and I hope you can see why it might be annoying. You think that the "rather bizarre cover" of the anthology is in some way important, or bizarre? Fine. Daphne Patai, the first-listed editor of Theory's Empire, has posted on The Valve. Please Email her and ask her all of the questions about the cover that you'd like. No one else except possibly her co-editor approved of the cover or can explain to you the authorial intention behind it. My interpretation of the cover would be that it does indeed mock Theory as a house of cards, but so what? I fail to see why this is either bizarre (in an anthology of essays chosen around the general theme of attacks on Theory) or important. Given her vita, I would characterize her as an intellectual; do you think that her choice of the cover (if she did choose it) is playing up to anti-intellectual sentiment?
Jodi: "Shoot, the argument for WMDs is the same one used for UFOS: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Exactly. Presumably, though, you would not wish be described as serving the interests of Donald Rumsfeld. And rightly so. I'd refrain from making that accusation because it's ungenerous and incendiary, along with intellectually and politically reductive. Now, consider your comments about racism, misogyny, etc. ["Precisely those folks who rail against the failure of theory to say anything new bring up old arguments in a new setting to sound fresh, to seem alternative. in the 90s, they really sounded like racists, homophobes, mysognynists. In the new climate, prepared by and through the culture wars, they sound (at least to themselves) as refreshing, conservative in a new-improved way."]
Have you not just said that critics of theory are not just motivated by illegitimate purpses ("to sound fresh, to seem alternative"), but that they are a mere continuation of earlier racism, et al.?
Nope--haven't said they are a mere continuation; have said that the climate in which the arguments appear is different--now conservatives are in power and, on some college campuses (and this has appeared in various newspaper articles) conservative students are a new kind of radical chic. I'll be more explicit: I actually don't think that contemporary conservatism is marked by racism (which is why I could construct the argument the way I did). I think it is a different formation, one that is primarily about occluding the structural role of economic antagonism. So, in the para you cited 'they' refers to those who are anti-theory; anti-theorists appear in different contexts.
On Rumsfeld, see I wouldn't think that someone was accusing me of being like Rumsfeld because I wasn't making a Rumsfeld point. Or, describing the UFO community doesn't seem to me to serve their interests, although others did attack me that for that. And, to me, that would miss the point: I was describing a kind of cultural mentality, which now seems widespread (and I realize I've shifted away from your point...)
oh--sound fresh, seem alternative: I don't think these purposes are illegitimate exactly. That is, it seems like lots of us try to come up with new ideas and alternatives to dominant modes of doing things. In fact, this could be attributed to theory and anti-theory, I should think (although, I gotta say, I am so not comfortable with these categories...)
Jodi, if you'd rather that I comment on your remarks on your own blog, I will. I started commenting here because Matt agreed with your ideas, and you seemed to have said everything you wanted to say.
I'm going to quote from your "What's So Scary About Theory" post. You start by saying that it's about discussion of _Theory's Empire_. Then:
"From my vantage point as a political theorist in a political science department (as opposed to a scholar working in literature and the humanities), what appears to me as the reductive thinking about theory seems the result of displacing real anxieties over the academic job market onto a fantasied image of their cause (Theory!) and a recoding of tired critiques of so-called 'postmodernism' into the popular (and faux populist/read 'nationalist') terms of today's anti-intellectualism."
That is an explicit psychologizing claim that states that specific attacks on theory that you haven't read are "reductive thinking about theory", are the result of job anxiety, and use the terms of anti-intellectualism. You finish with:
"[...] The Right promises a transgressive thrill of racism, sexism, nationalism: enjoy excluding! enjoy 'returning' to the true values, the true text [...]"
which directly contradicts your assertion above that "I actually don't think that contemporary conservatism is marked by racism".
You made no mention in your post that anyone might hold an anti-theory position that does not exist within these general contextual features. So Sean McCann, since he opposes theory, must be motivated by job anxiety, using the terms of anti-intellectualism, and perhaps be enjoying the transgressive thrill of racism.
You made the same accusation when I criticized your remarks on The Valve. You wrote: "Rich, and, what we’ve left out of this little exchange is the way that in some contexts the accusation of intellectualism can also be dismissive! Oh those pointy heady intellectual with their pie in the sky ideas sheltered behind their ivy covered walls as they nit-pick and qualify the night away!" That is a direct implication that my remarks were also anti-intellectual.
I really have no idea why you bother with these caricatures. If they're simply flames, why not just make them? If they are supposed to be serious, they are trivial overgeneralizations, Just-So stories in which you start with job anxiety and end with whatever you like. They're not just reification through historicization, they're a bad example of such. And lastly they appear to be a cheap way to say "You're racist!" and then deny it in a flood of verbiage.
Sean,
first of all, you haven't answered my question.
I will now respond in piecemeal, if you'll permit, and I agree with Jodi that it's hard to respond to so much at once, again:
I have no desire, however, to discuss matters with them elsewhere. (I regard van Worden in particular as being beneath contempt, as I do anyone who carelessly tosses around the rhetoric of anti-semitism.) What I want to know is how you justify your claims of laziness and dishonesty. If you continue to believe this is true of me, you have some obligation to present evidence. If you no longer believe it, then the decent thing to do would be to retract.
Well I think your apology (in the comments, now hidden) to Mark Kaplan goes a long way to making up for the lazy dishonesty of your post, yes. Your description of each post you linked to there was extremely uncharitable at best.
Like I said, I'll let Alphonse speak for herself.
You both still insist on misreading my --as I've said tentative, deliberately provoking, and perhaps unfair-- reference to "a certain history of anti-intellectualism in America especially" as a direct accusation of anti-intellectualism on your part pure and simple, or at least guilt by association, etc., thus elevating what is in fact a rather marginal and, once again descriptive side-note to my larger claims concerning responsibility (again, see Mark's post) to a central position.
I happen to think anti-intellectualism is a subtle beast, yes, but it was never my intention to accuse either The Valvians or those who comment there of being flat-out anti-intellectual. That would be quite silly, given the number of PhD's on display now, wouldn't it? But insofar as it--this meme---constitutes a convenient terrain on which to respond to *everything* being raised in the above posts without having to respond at all, addresss more nuanced concerns or concede anything, I can apppreciate why it's being fixated upon (pardon my rampant psychologizing).
Look, I think there are legitimate problems with the presentation aspect and the stated ambitions of this anthology (as well as with the ambitions to which it is being put to use by the editor of The Valve), as I'm sure will come out soon enough at least in part in Bérubé's review and elsewhere. Do you have a problem with that perspective, other than how it sounds to you like Joe McCarthy?
By the use of the word "Eagletonian" I don't mean vulgar Marxism in particular, but any analysis that claims that a text is reduceable to its historicization of one sort or another.
Not reducible, no, never (again, that would be silly). But historical context, in all its facets, *is* *important*.
You keep hinting about this larger context -- what, in particular, should I know about it? That right-wingers who attack Theory exist? I know this. That others beyond those on The Valve have also commented on Theory's Empire, and on general theory/anti-th
(cont.-shit,forgot to save)
...I know that.
All this post is saying is: Read these posts (all of them) as well as their comment threads. I think they speak for themselves, descriptively, and to varying degrees to a certain perspective that has been largely neglected on The Valve. You're welcome to just regard them as "beneath contempt" as you see fit, but they are not going away, and they address, I think, a more nuanced perspective that is not going away either.
This will be my last post here for a while.
Oh, Rich,
Your use of the word "theory" (by which I assume you mean "[T]heory" is itself a caricature. Saying one "just found it that way" does not excuse one's uncritical use of it.
Again, see Mark's thread here.
Alright, Matt. You've reiterated your charges and indicated that you're prepared to stoop to all sorts of depths. Were you not such a poor reader and haplessly obfuscatory writer you might have noted that I made no apology to Mark for misrepresenting his views and have explained to him and to yourself why what I wrote was not a misrepresentation at all. You might also have noted that the comments you refer to are not hidden. There is an italicized update there (and has been since yesterday) indicating where the comments are and how to get to them. Carefulness with facts and argument does not appear to be your long suit. Nor is an interest in writing clearly and being responsible for the intimation and innuendo you are happy to float. My only satisfaction is the confidence that someday someone will pull this obnoxious crap on you and you'll be too dim to figure out why it's objectionable.
To criticize 'theory' as such appears to me to be reductive because I don't find the term by itself useful. For example, political theory has relatively clear disciplinary boundaries and practices; these are often contested and there are different types of political theory, but it's usually only criticized as such by folks in political science interested in formal methods. So, I find it reductive to critique theory as such because I think the term theory is too broad to be useful.
Now, on the other hand, I have a sense that what folks are attacking is something that used to be called poststructuralism and/or cultural studies. And, the reception and use of poststructuralism and cultural studies in English departments in the US has been controversial, with long, long debates. So, why now? because it responds to a diverse set of needs and issues. This does not mean that every person who shares the critique has the same issues. Rather, it means that the critique takes off, becomes an event, resonates, insofar as it crystalizes a variety of different motives and matters.
On the racism question, yes, there is a contradiction in the way I said that. I need to think about it because I actually might think both things. That is, I think the Bush administration and the Republican party are not racist (although I think that they rely on racial logics in their foreign policy). And, I also think that nationalism, patriotism, and concern with so-called security enable and perhaps inspire a kind of racism explicitly disavowed by conservatives.
Either way, this isn't the same thing or as saying--or even close to saying-- that Sean is motivated by racism.
(I don't think all Heideggerians are anti-semites; I don't think advocates of Nietzsche are proto-fascists...)
Oh yes--I was responding to Rich.
Jodi says it well.
Sean, what can I say? I'm sorry I didn't catch that crucial update since...yesterday. Here's what you wrote in response to Mark; it sounds like an apology to me:
My apologies, though, Mark for missing the comment thread to your T1 and T2 post. I should have read it earlier and just scrolled through now. Agreed, your part in it (by contrast to that of some of your commenters) is perfectly courteous.
Subsequently, when Mark writes:
Surely you can appreciate the comic element of the Breaking News post, intended in part as light relief from the more serious postings. You’ve misconstrued the meaning of the final remark (which might be my fault) – it was suggesting that grappling with this monster (ie doing theory) was the key to advancement.
I expressed agreement with Robert insofar as the Theory debate has often been framed in a certain way, and it’s as well to be aware of this. Robert’s words shouldn’t simply have been attributed to me. I naturally wasn’t suggesting that any criticism of Theory was complicit with a ‘rightist agenda’, and this should be clear from my exchange with Scott and John Holbo.
The cover of Theory’s Empire is worthy of analysis as symptomatic of a certain familiar attitude/ rhetoric. This single image, and the attendant attitude, is not of course representative of the whole range of anti-Theory positions - that would be absurd.
I couldn't agree more. You then state:
Mark, I’m delighted to know that that’s what you meant and will be glad to retract the charge.
It seems that you have no interest whatsoever in answering my question, but only in being "insulted," which is something I have never done. I've described your post as lazy and Holbo's explicit use of the ideal distinction theory/Theory in seeking to articulate a "wrong philosophical turn" irresponsible, yes. How about that?
In all fairness, it should probably be pointed out that you followup that retraction with:
What you say now about the Theory monster, though, is, I think, exactly the opposite of what the most likely reading of your post would suggest.
Which, if I may say so, seems rather precisely the impression problem, at least in significant part, and complicated by sweeping dismissals à la Holbo, facing this anthology itself. The "most likely reading be damned", if you catch my dim-witted drift. Do you understand my point?
Matt, I'm fairly sure that I never wrote the words "beneath contempt" which you put in quotes as part of a response to some of my text. Yes, if I had written that I thought that these posts were beneath contempt, I can understand why you'd be peeved. But I didn't. Far too much of your response characterizes people not by what they wrote, but by what you seem to think that they wrote. The hermanuetics of suspicion requires clarity about who wrote what.
Jodi, I'll reply to your last in the comment thread for "What's So Scary About Theory" on your blog. In brief, your "I don't think all Heideggerians are anti-semites" breaks down because you have no evidence that the people criticizing theory are even the Heideggerians of your metaphor.
Matt, I laughed out loud when I read the quote after 'sounds like an apology to me.'
Having just re-read this entire thread let me say to Rich, thank you for the more patient responses, and I apologize if my tone in trying to respond to so much at once seemed at all overly aggressive.
I can appreciate, in some respects, how what I am saying could be seen to amount to "a weird sort of guilt by association" that is also quite "annoying.
Obviously, I haven't been clear enough (and maybe a bit defensive in the face of so many ____ analogies). I find it hard to believe, though, that such a criticism as Bérubé raises and that I then take mabye a little too far than is useful, is really all that weird. In fact it seems to me a rather obvious point to make.
Rich, you write:
My interpretation of the cover would be that it does indeed mock Theory as a house of cards, but so what? I fail to see why this is either bizarre (in an anthology of essays chosen around the general theme of attacks on Theory) or important.
One could ask, I suppose, whether the proper role of an anthology is really to mock or to introduce, but what the cover (and introduction) also does, you neglect to mention, is take for granted the self-evidence and efficacy of this word, "Theory."
So long as this debate remains fixed within the set frame of Theory/anti-Theory (with some ambiguous supposedly non-Thoery entity lurking largely in the shadows unacknowledged?), it is either tarred, yes, still, by polemic, or so restrained and limited to the picayunities of institutional politics as to be quite boring. That's a comment about the debate, as I see it, not the anthology. It's a comment about the ways in which this anthology is being put to use, broadly, sweepingly, in far more ways than relates just to institutional politics or the small handful of tenured academics explicitly "doing theory" in a largely hostile environment (in my experience, anyway, calling Theory an "Empire" is like calling the thorn in the paw an elephant). But it does seem a common enough rhetorical maneuver.
I happen to agree, as I've said repeatedly, that much of what is done in the name of "theory" in America especially is atrocious. So in no way am I a dogmatic defendent of something called "Theory." Scott says he "no longer lumps" me "in that classs" just for raising my hand." I suggest you both do the same.
Sean,
I guess I was curious whether or not you felt like the tenor of your post was at all responsible for the degeneration into vituperativeness. WHile I don't blame you personally for one notorious troll, I certainly still do think your accusation of each of those posts as constituting "hymns in ad hominem" was unfair. With regard to Mark specifically, it's true what you say, that you
made no apology to Mark for misrepresenting his views.
I'm not such a bad reader as to miss that. But as titles are important (though not everything), I am still left wondering just how his post(s) ammounted to
...
I'm not such a bad reader as to miss that. But as titles are important (though not everything), I am still left wondering just how his post(s) ammounted to ad hominem. Perhaps some clarification is in order.
Thanks.
Rich, you're right, the "beneath contempt" was all Sean's.
"It's a comment about the ways in which this anthology is being put to use, broadly, sweepingly, in far more ways than relates just to institutional politics or the small handful of tenured academics explicitly "doing theory" in a largely hostile environment"
really well said
Please note: two more links have been added to the above post.
"Alphonse van Worden gets steamed up over a minor distinction. Let’s accept her pedagogy, though, and read her as she wishes to be read. Now what’s she saying? Only that critics of Theory are bedfellows of antisemites"
You can't even count to one? Some critics of theory such as yourself are bedfellows of a famous 19th century composer of opera, inventor of the music drama, whose aesthetic manifesto, Judaism in Music, lays out many of your complaints and many of your positions. That he called this enemy 'Judaism' is eccentric, not typical.
Sorry Matt I had no intention of replying to this analfabeta, but I wished to save you having to repeat yet again that you declined to speak in my stead.
But really as this Troll is a bore and not psychotic I have neither interest in nor compassion for him.
Matt, I think that you're still misrepresenting Sean with the "beneath contempt" thing. I searched the page for the phrase, and found that Sean used it to refer to Van Worden, who he said was beneath contempt for throwing around accusations of anti-semitism. You changed the subject of the phrase to refer to "these posts", as if Sean had said that all of the linked posts that he complained about were beneath contempt. That's, I think, a significant difference in meaning, even if you still disagree with Sean's use of the phrase as he actually used it. Similarly, your attempted "gotcha" about his supposed apology is not really a gotcha. Sean said that he made no apology for misrepresenting Mark's views. And he didn't. He apologized for missing a comment thread. I interpret this to mean that Sean thinks that his representation of Mark's original post was accurate, and that he just didn't see everything that Mark wrote.
"what the cover (and introduction) also does, you neglect to mention, is take for granted the self-evidence and efficacy of this word, "Theory." "
Let's presume that this is true. Again, so what? You can argue that the book's essays should never have been collected, but once they were collected, *something* had to be on the cover.
"It's a comment about the ways in which this anthology is being put to use, broadly, sweepingly, in far more ways than relates just to institutional politics or the small handful of tenured academics explicitly "doing theory" in a largely hostile environment"
I, unfortunately, do not find this to be really well said. OK, how is this anthology being put to use? Do you know?
Rich,
You're absolutely right! Maybe I can help explain.
Sean was explaining in that paragraph why he had no interest whatsoever in commenting on other posts. The "beneath contempt" was aimed at a friend of mine explicitly, yes. My guess is he didn't even read the post, much less this person's blog. Much less still even understand the tone.
I was curious to see whether Sean's apologies on The Valve were at all related to his sloppy post itself, or only to having had the unfortunate luck of drawing the attention of a certain notorious lurker. I guess we got the answer to that one. He has yet to explain how Mark's post amounts to ad hominem, or how all our posts together amount to singing to the choir. But coming from someone who accept's the premise that Theory is an "empire" I suppose this shouldn't be surprising.
As for your second qustion, well it's certainly being put to use to gather steam for an indictment against a "wrong philosophic turn" among other things. The only essay that sounds even remotely like it might interest me gets Derrida "just exactly wrong." It's been argued that this anthology is a deliberate counter-attack on the Norton for various reasons. I notice on The Valve now that many people are voicing respect for The Norton. This would seem to suggest to me that their editor-in-chief's views are a bit eccentric, but what do I know?
"what the cover (and introduction) also does, you neglect to mention, is take for granted the self-evidence and efficacy of this word, "Theory." "
Let's presume that this is true. Again, so what?
So it's lazy and irresponsible, to dignify certain already highly-charged words by uncritical repetition, or rather, that is, in the service of such ends as removing a "squatter" who "won't die fast enough." Every repetition being not quite the same, remember (knowing you're a fan of Bérubé's posts).
AVW was most certainly not "throwing around accusations of anti-semitism." I'm not accusing you of being a shoddy reader, but I find it baffling how both of you seem to have leapt to this conclusion with very little effort.
So, does this help at all?
Matt: "I'm not accusing you of being a shoddy reader, but I find it baffling how both of you seem to have leapt to this conclusion with very little effort."
There is the *both of us* again.
Here is what I wrote: "I searched the page for the phrase, and found that Sean used it to refer to Van Worden, who he said was beneath contempt for throwing around accusations of anti-semitism." That is the only mention I have ever made of Van Worden.
That is enough about Sean. I think that his comments are mostly justified, in that it takes extra-large-heapings of forbearance to avoid bridling at things like "I'm not accusing you of being a shoddy reader, but ..." -- followed by a misrepresentation. I've done my poetic satire bit and can therefore not bridle; Sean has been trying to be reasonable throughout.
Back to substantive matters:
Matt: "As for your second question, well it's certainly being put to use to gather steam for an indictment against a "wrong philosophic turn" among other things."
Oh no it's not. The "wrong philosophic turn" is a quote from Holbo. His attacks on Theory are actually *far less* severe after _Theory's Empire_ than before.
Who is supposed to be using it to gather steam for an indictment? (That is not a rhetorical question.) You know, the steam is done, The Valve is going to be moving on to Wittgenstein, and the one person who wrote about the "blog event" was disappointed in its tameness and its refusal to go to culture war.
Matt: "The only essay that sounds even remotely like it might interest me gets Derrida "just exactly wrong.""
Interest to you is not the only criterion of value. And if the only problem were lack of interest, you wouldn't have written so much about it.
Matt: "It's been argued that this anthology is a deliberate counter-attack on the Norton for various reasons."
Argued by who? By you, and I remember how that went. Berube was certainly not arguing that.
Mat: "I notice on The Valve now that many people are voicing respect for The Norton. This would seem to suggest to me that their editor-in-chief's views are a bit eccentric, but what do I know?"
About Holbo? Not much, apparently. I've never read him attacking The Norton, so a general respect for it would not make him eccentric in comparison. But really, just look at how silly this is getting. "It has been argued" that the anthology is a deliberate attack on The Norton, so you're surprised that people on the Valve respect The Norton? Matt, The Valve is not the anthology.
Hello Rich,
Well I apologize for conflating the two of you again. I guess this is like where I mention how I've been accused of "endorsing" Jodi and Alphonse's views, and failing to defend them, etc. as well, and we could begin again.
Oh no it's not. The "wrong philosophic turn" is a quote from Holbo. His attacks on Theory are actually *far less* severe after _Theory's Empire_ than before.
You'll just have to forgive me if I'm not an expert on the anti-theory evolution of John Holbo. Responding to posts in which he was responding to Theory's Empire seemed like fair game to me.
I'm sorry, but calling thoughtful posts "hymns in ad hominem" and "throwing around accusations of anti-semitism" is mostly justified? Since when?
As for:
Matt: "It's been argued that this anthology is a deliberate counter-attack on the Norton for various reasons."
Argued by who? By you, and I remember how that went. Berube was certainly not arguing that.
Alright, maybe it hasn't been argued, and maybe "counter-balance" would have been a better term, but I'm hardly the only one suggesting it. Might I suggest that for this and more one may look again here, here, here ,
here, here and here...or hell, just use that little search function on The Valve for "Norton."
It just occurred to me that there is something interesting in this Troll and that it is that has habits very similar to some antisemitism. For example the promsicuous exchange of Wager, "antisemites," "antisemitism," is identical to the same promiscuous exchange of Rothschild, 'the' Jews, Judaism; the refusal to distinguish singular and plural; the deliberate misconstruction and feigned misundertanding of all evidence contrary to his assertion that 'The Jews' or 'the Antisemites' or 'the Critics of Theory' are X or are represented by Y; and the pleasure he seems to take in this obstinacy, this cultivated stupidity, playing a little playground version of the torturer-torturee pair, delighting in asserting things he knows are false but which he is sort of gesturing or suggesting an invisible jury as stupid as he might fall for. Also there is the put on drama of outraged innocence and the key thing: the false accusation. He is insisting I accused him of something when in fact until yesterday I didn' even know he existed.
By his Discerning Consumption method of reading, there would be no meaningful distinction between noting that Nazi aesthetics were antimodernist and accusing some individual who doesn't like Picasso of Nazism. The mention of the former not only implies but enacts the flinging of the gross unfounded insult of the latter.
So, the gist is the forbidding of the mention of certain truths because of Sean's preferred interpretation of their implications.
This careless tossing around of the rhetoric of antisemitism is geared toward a kind of intimidation; he is obviously a little disturbed by the pedigree of his views and wished it not discussed.
By his method, stated clearly, Wagner=Antisemites=Antisemitism, he must be accusing me of right wing Zionism, for his statements have made me their bedfellows by attributing to me their identifying characteristic. Since van Worden=Theorists=Theory, McCann is evidently asserting that Theory is a variant of right wing Zionism.
One more step of this kind, pursuing the technique McCann introduces and low and behold...we find....yes, by his logic; he is an antisemite after all!
Now, he is obviously not a Judeophobe. Should we allow him to accuse himself so unjustly of antisemitism? I condemn that careless accusation. Sean stop maligning yourself as a racist for pity's sake.
there would be no meaningful distinction between noting that Nazi aesthetics were antimodernist and accusing some individual who doesn't like Picasso of Nazism
Not quite. There is no legitimate reason to make the juxtaposition in the first case. Even given your doubtful genealogy, there is no shortage of non-racist critics of modernism or of theory. Had you not wished to associate critics of theory with antisemitism, you could have avoided it quite easily. But you did wish. The casuistry and feigned outrage are all on your side. No surprise that you re-erect the charge.
A rather pedantic little footnote:
Sean: Mark himself has acknowledged that poor draftsmanship might be responsible for my understanding of his “Breaking News” comment. That seems fair. Here’s why: Mark first describes a Theory monster, then advertises for something to catch it and offers a reward. It would be reasonable to suppose that what would catch a Theory monster wouldn’t be Theory itself.
Erm, I explicitly said, in my corrective to your initial reading that ‘catching the theory monster’ meant getting to grips with it, ie doing theory – so how could the subjects ‘doing’ this theory be Theory itself? To spell it out: people prepared to grapple with the monster will be rewarded. You seem to have made the slip of equating these noble souls with the monster itself. One of the charges levelled against theory is that it ‘rules the roost in literary studies’ and that the acquisition of theory-capital has become necessary to career advancement. The line you mention ironically alluded to this. Incidentally, to say that something helps consolidate a Rightist agenda (irrespective of whether I was saying this) isn’t an ‘ad hominen’ attack in any precise sense.
I acknowledged that the line could have been taken in the way you took it. This may well have been due to ambiguity (I wouldn't use the phrase 'bad draftmanship'), but I also suggest that your reading would have been less likely had you read the 'T1/t2' post and subsequent discussion.
Sean:
I am not responsible for the similarity between you and Wagner - you are. If you don't wish to be associated with Wagner's anti-semitism, and you feel that his aesthetic positions are inescapably tainted by it, you could have chosen other traditions of thought to imitate.
I mean, I didn't name you. I'm taking your word for it that the target of the post accurately describes you and that your identification with it is reasonable. You recognized yourself in the Wagner passage. I don't even know what you think.
"Had you not wished to associate critics of theory with antisemitism, you could have avoided it quite easily"
You recommend voluntary ignorance of the association which is historically demonstrable.
What a shock you should do so.
An analysis of the history of hostility to critical thought in social democratic or anarchist or marxist forms would be pretty lame and incomplete if it ignored the very central and important anti-theory ideology that is associated with three variants of antisemitism.
I recommend you look at Musil's 'The German as Symptom' for a start.
Mark,
I appreciate the fact that, unlike some of your associates, you are not indifferent to decency and do not mean to be prejudicial. But, I'm sorry, whatever you meant, your words said this: there is a Theory monster (whose characteristics are those frequently mentioned by some critics of Theory); it has escaped; there will be a reward for capturing it. Since the critics of Theory are naturally concerned to identify and constrain the phenomenon you describe as uncontainable, the most obvious reading of those words is that those doing the capturing will not be proponents of Theory itself. (An analogy to bears and hunters can be found above. I think it's a fair one.)
The explanation you offered in the thread following my post does indeed identify the hunter and the hunted as Theorists and Theory respectively. So, the confusion between "noble souls" and "monster" is not mine, but in fact yours. I recognize that there's a cleverness in that. But, apart from showing me that, unlike many of your commenters, you are inclined to be decent and generous, neither your T1/T2 post (which I did read) nor the following thread would have made this unlikely reading clear.
I'm afraid I also differ with you about the ad hominem. Saying that someone helps advance a right wing agenda by logical implication criticizes them either for pursuing an agenda in place of legitimate intellectual dispute or for culpably failing to recognize the effect of their words in advancing an agenda they don't support. Either implication substitutes criticism of the motive and characteristics of the speaker for consideration of his or her ideas. That is my fundamental point. Criticism of Theory is dismissed as illegitimate before it is heard or, as some have noted, before it is read.
Sean,
The idea is that those wanting a career in academia – not Theory itself - have to deal with the Theory monster. Nothing has been conflated here.
That something helps strengthen a particular agenda is about consequences – no person is being impugned, nothing is being substituted. It is either true or false. You clearly concede that arguments can, over and above their truth content, further certain agendas? If you were to say that someone’s argument had dangerous ethical implications, would that be an ad hominem attack? Of course not
I'm sorry but what precisely do you mean by "Theory" here, Sean?
there is a Theory monster (whose characteristics are those frequently mentioned by some critics of Theory
whose amazingly contradictory, characteristics are frequently mentioned by critics in the service of the same sweeping polemic (and without acknowledgement of these contradictions), thereby suggesting "Theory" with a capital "T" to be a rather incoherent object of inquiry as soon as it's put to any large or sweeping purpose, would you disagree?
On the chance the lay reader neglected to click those links in the comments box above, they are, respectively, to
a)a comment by DP, editor of the Theory's Empire anthology, in which she mentions The Norton
b)a comment by Michael Bérubé, in which he states:
I think it’s pretty clear that the editors’ ambition is to challenge the institutional status of the Norton (or whatever they imagine that institutional status to be)
c)a post by Scott Eric Kaufman, in which he writes:
I can’t contest Matt‘s claim that the introduction to Theory’s Empire declares the timeliness, nay! necessity of an anti-Norton anthology with a bombast the articles it introduces can’t support.
d)a comment by Jeffrey Wallen, contributor to Theory's Empire, in which he states:
The volume presents essays that express discomfort with the recent trends in literary theory and criticism, in marked contrast to anthologies such as the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism
e)a comment by John Holbo, in which he states:
But the editors of Empire think - I think they are clearly right - that their 700-page volume is a whopping great beam in the eye of the Norton.
...you get the idea.
I'm going to resolutely ignore the rest of this in order to try to wrap up what I meant to say to Matt:
Matt, I don't expect you to be
"an expert on the anti-theory evolution of John Holbo." But you did claim that he (at least, you quoted him) was using the event to "gather steam for an indictment". The first thing I'd like to communicate at a result of this thread: when a rhetorical statement looks like a factual one, you can't be surprised when people refute it factually. You brought up the gathering steam business; it is perfectly appropriate for someone to retort with a history that shows no gathering of steam. In short, you make too many rhetorical claims that look like factual claims, and you don't check whether they are actually true first.
The second thing I'd like to communicate -- know your limits. For whatever reason, you really aren't that good at distinguishing what people have actually said in blog comments from what you think they said. I have no idea whether this is due to some special characteristic of blog comments or not, but there it is. In order to make an argument that synthesizes mentions of The Norton from links of six different blog posts or comments, you need to be very, very good at keeping track of what was actually said. This means that you really shouldn't attempt that kind of argument.
Let me review your argument again --
"It's been argued that this anthology is a deliberate counter-attack on the Norton for various reasons."
Let's see if you can figure out why none of the links that you cited support this argument. I'll quote the relevant text from each:
The links:
1. Daphne Patai: "Since critics of “theory” are regularly consigned to some outer pale where they pathetically try to “defend their privileges” or their ignorance. Cf. the Norton’s jibes, and that of most any “theory” anthology."
2. Michael Berube: "I suppose it all depends on how you read the intro to TE. I think it’s pretty clear that the editors’ ambition is to challenge the institutional status of the Norton (or whatever they imagine that institutional status to be), but I’m happy to have my intentionalist claims challenged."
3. Scott Eric Kaufman: "I can’t contest Matt‘s claim that the introduction to Theory’s Empire declares the timeliness, nay! necessity of an anti-Norton anthology with a bombast the articles it introduces can’t support. But what about the introduction to The Norton?"
(I'll give you a hint on this one. This is an explicit response to your argument. You can't say "It has been argued" if what you mean is "I argue that".)
4. Jeffrey Wallen: "The volume presents essays that express discomfort with the recent trends in literary theory and criticism, in marked contrast to anthologies such as the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism or MLA volumes such as Redrawing the Boundaries (from 1992), which embrace enthusiastically, almost as cheerleaders, all the trends
Drat, cut off!
One last representative quote, from John Holbo: "In an earlier post, I suggested that Theory's Empire fufills its function of being a beam in the eye of the Norton. The above paragraph underscores this. If you honestly believe what this paragraph says, you will think that the 'antitheorists' are an intensely simple, naive, unreflective, philosophically untutored, anti-intellectual tribe. To open Theory's Empire, then, could be nothing less than a staggering revelation. Not one page of this 700 page volume is remotely like what the Norton leads you to believe every page of it must be like! Oh Brave New World!"
Note: a "beam in the eye" does not refer to someone attacking someone else with a large wooden beam and hitting them in the eye.
If you had argued "I think that the Theory's Empire introduction sometimes mocks The Norton" I would agree with you. But, you know, having the introduction of one anthology mock another is transgressive, performative, self-referential, a dissent from the master narrative and all that, it is not a jealous fury or a deliberate counter-attack. At worst, it does the exact same thing that you've done: it treats an anthology as if it symbolizes a larger entity.
Mark,
In the comment thread to my post, you said that the point of your remark about careerism was to "sugges[t] that grappling with this monster (ie doing theory) was the key to advancement" (your emphasis). In other words, you said that "doing theory" is the way that the "Theory monster" might be "caught and grappled with." Theory and theory on both sides of the equation. That's not my invention. It's what you wrote.
Now, given your T1/T2 post, I can see how there might be a point of confusion here. If there is "Theory" (as John, Scott, myself, and virtually the entire sphere of literary academia in the U.S agrees) and "doing theory" refers to it (as it does in common parlance), then, indeed, those pursuing Theory by your terms can be called careerist. They're after the reward.
If, on the other hand, when you say "doing theory" you mean to use the term as John does and as you refer to in your T1/T2 post, then your comment says only that those who seek to use theory against Theory are careerists--i.e. just what I originally took you to be saying. In this version the critics are after the reward.
It can't be both, but has to be one or the other. If it is the former then, yes, you do treat Theorists as the grapplers of Theory. The "noble souls" are also the producers of the "Monster." If it's the latter, then the critics of Theory are careerists.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Either way, of course, the charge of careerism is ad hominem. So, in my view, is the charge of wittingly or unwittingly advancing a noxious agenda. You're right, there is a question of fact. In this case, I think it's quite reasonable to believe that there are zero political consequences outside academia to criticizing Theory. But there is also the question of whether motives or culpable negligence has been impugned. Do you mean to say that you do believe that criticism of Theory does indeed advance a rightest agenda, but that you don't mean to impugn the intention or negligence of those helping that advancement? That would be strange. Why would it be worth mentioning? And in fact in your "Cover Charge" post you say: "I would think it wise to analyse this framing before simply settling on ‘Theory’ as your object of analysis." That remark says quite clearly, before attending to the criticism of Theory we should consider the wisdom of its critics in bolstering the frame provided by a rightest agenda. Someone is, in fact, being impugned there.
All of this comes back to my original hope, as echoed by John: that it might be possible to discuss Theory without assuming that critics of Theory are motivated by (or serving) bad politics. Some people are clearly not going to make that concession. You seem to be a more generous and reasonable person, though, and I hope you’ll agree that this might be the case and we can put this otherwise useless discussion aside.
Rich,
You'll notice if you read my comments that I immediately anticipated being soundly defeated on the poor choice of word in "argument" which was subsequently revised to "suggestion."
I take your criticisms seriously and appreciate the time if must take you to make them.
I guess I'll just repeat to Sean yet again how to attribute to me (or some vague others) the strong claim that opponents of Theory are motivated by a rightest agenda is just plain false, and we'll assume that if he continues to use it as ammunition in the future it will be understood merely as rhetorical blanks.
(Stepping back in, gingerly, a bit reluctantly...)
"possible to discuss Theory without assuming that critics of Theory are motivated by (or serving) bad politics"
But here's the thing, Sean. When the attacks on theory are linked to depoliticization of the field... for "us" no politics = bad politics.
Show me the left critique of theory on the Valve (maybe there is one! I don't know!) and we're in business...
But we'll keep attacking you as the carriers of a malignant political strain if you keep trying to leave politics out of the game.
...and lest you head in an unprofitable direction, Matt's last paragraph and my last post don't contradict each other in the least...
Ah, thank you, CR! Finally, some one willing to drop all the obfuscation and put things clearly. I think you're entirely wrong, but at least, unlike some of your colleagues, you'll say what you mean and say it clearly.
My own view is almost exactly identical to Timothy Burke’s, as cited by Scott, and to Rich’s. The reputed political significance of Theory is almost entirely reputation alone. In this view, challenging the current vocabulary of the academic humanities will have no measurable political effect outside academia (and probably not within it either) and arguably is perfectly consistent with a left politics that cares about things like inequality, exploitation, insecurity, and a war-mongering, imperial government. Since it’s perfectly obvious that many people with no affinity for Theory object also object to these things and are able to do so with conceptual clarity, there’s no reason to assume that criticizing Theory, or dropping it, will affect those matters at all. (There is also the argument—a la Chomsky and Sokal and others—that Theory isn’t just neutral to left politics, but an actual impediment. I see no need to make that case myself, but it’s certainly evidence to weigh in the balance against the charge that opposing Theory is a malignant political strain.)
(continued below)
To go a step further, if I hadn’t have gotten distracted by this discussion, I probably would have posted by now the second part of my discussion of the apocalyptic attitude shared by Derrida and Butler. One aspect of that post will suggest (as you’ve sussed, but in a different manner) that the political implications of Butler’s views, as of Derrida’s, is actually something like liberal gradualism—with a strong emphasis on individual choice, an almost complete indifference to class, and almost no room for any aspect of state power (of any kind, socialist or otherwise) to pursue benevolent outcomes. Despite it’s stylization, this in my view is not a particularly leftist attitude. Nor is my view here unprecedented. It’s shared, more or less, by, on one side of things, Rorty, and, on the other, Barbara Foley.
This is all arguable, of course. But it can’t really be argued if when you present your views you’re regarded not as an author advancing an idea, but a carrier of a malignant disease.
Oh, cripes, CR. I thought you were better than that. They do contradict each other. The only way they couldn't is if you assume that being the carrier of a virus overrides motivation.
p.s., Was it you or the virus inhabiting you that wrote that last post? See the problem?
p.s., Aren't you the guys who are supposed to be so attentive to framing? Consider your rhetoric, CR:
We'll attack you as the carriers of a malignant strain?
Now, who is it that's afraid of the infection of the unclean? who needs to do battle against the insidious menace? who treats ideas as symptoms of an epidemic? This is the task you're setting up for yourself here. It is quite directly comparable to Scott's remark about the Maginot line. (Call it a cordon sanitaire.) This is the kind of polarization I want to avoid, but that, as you finally acknowledge here, you'd really like to see.
"To go a step further, if I hadn’t have gotten distracted by this discussion, I probably would have posted by now the second part of my discussion of the apocalyptic attitude shared by Derrida and Butler. One aspect of that post will suggest (as you’ve sussed, but in a different manner) that the political implications of Butler’s views, as of Derrida’s, is actually something like liberal gradualism—with a strong emphasis on individual choice, an almost complete indifference to class, and almost no room for any aspect of state power..."
Sean, given the above you shouldn't be lecturing other people on their (in)ability to read, or their reductive approach.
Why not, hum? Is it impermissible for me to evaluate other people's ideas (and to evaluate them in ways that, given the fact that CR agrees with them at least in part, are apparently not perverse)? I have no intention of saying that Butler is malignant or that she shouldn't be read. In fact, I've actually read her and will respond to her in detail. So, why not wait to read my post and then take up the argument with me. I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But until you can actually point to a specific misreading of the sort that have been noted above (e.g., Matt's non-gotcha, which even he retracts), why not hold off on the indictment?
Please excuse the brief delay while some Sam Lowry at Haloscan tries to figure out which ads would work well here
i didn't hold off on the "indictment" ( you do have a marked taste for such language ) for two reasons:
1- your para that i quote above truly astonished me. i cannot tell whether your statements are the result of non-reading or bad reading. just one example: you speak of a " strong emphasis on individual choice". do i really need to point out the problems with this statement? have you not read the philosophical and psychoanalytic texts that question "the subject"? or are you - quite bizarre - implying that derrida and butler haven't?
2- i came across this para after wading through a series of your posts here which were replete with "advice" to others on the subject of reading. you should try it sometime.
In other words, you said that "doing theory" is the way that the "Theory monster" might be "caught and grappled with." Theory and theory on both sides of the equation. That's not my invention. It's what you wrote.
No, ‘doing theory’ IS nothing but catching and grappling with the monster. Simply substitute ‘catching and grappling with’ for ‘doing’.
The claim that possession of Theory-capital advances careers was adopted ironically. It's not an ad hominem claim as far as I'm concerned, since it doesn't imply that people doing theory only do it for their career, but as it's not my claim, I'm not really invested in defending it. I'm also presuming you added 'stupid' to 'careerism' simply for rhetorical effect - again, nothing in my post specifically suggested it.
Apart from everything else, that post was a comic interlude. Only inches down the page was a more serious, 'academic' piece which, if you wanted a better representation of my views, it would have been only too easy to consult.
re: "Matt's non-gotcha", which one did you have in mind Sean?
It's been painstakingly pointed out to you, and in several places, that your post bearing the title "Hymns in Ad Hominem" is at the very least quite sloppy. I asked you whether your various subsequent apologies were at all related to this sloppiness and you either declined to answer or implicitly said that no, they were only for having had the poor fortune of attracting a certain notorious "troll." If this impression of mine is incorrect, needless to say I'd be grateful to have it pointed out.
Rich's insinuation, whether deliberate or not, that I was the only one breathing the word "Norton" in this context ("and I remember how that turned out") has I think been rather soundly refuted.
Suggesting that The Norton is part of this context, a convenient and orienting oppositional point maybe, while not necessarily arguing that Theory's Empire constitute's an "attack," or an attack merely, is something that Bérubé has repeatedly done, though not without a hint of playful irony ("this place[his blog] may as well be Norton Central").
In this he was also responding, I think it's safe to say, to Holbo, who writes, and I quote at length because I sincerely think it's a perspective worth exploring (and first by reading the whole thing, say, sometime when you have 3-4 hours to spare):
...there are lots of old philosophers in the Norton, just few contemporary ones from outside the continental tradition. Even though analytic philosophy has a massive and quite venerable tradition of theorizing about meaning and intention and so forth. Why are they ignored? (I don't mean in a sociological sense. I mean: what is the actual intellectual justification for the selection?)
The answer is that Knapp and Michaels are included because they are regarded as 'doing theory' in the sense that they officially declare impossible (complex irony). They are part of a tradition of having effects of a certain sort. (In this limiting case, the effect of declaring effect impossible; which may have a big effect.) Analytic philosophers may have vastly better and more rigorous and sophisticated theories of meaning and intention - no showing has been made to the contrary - but they haven't really wowed the literary critics. So they haven't had effects. So they don't 'do theory'. So they don't get in the Norton.
"Simply substitute ‘catching and grappling with’ for ‘doing’"
Mark, that's precisely what I did. Hence the reference to theory on both sides of the equation. Haven't you now just confirmed that reading: i.e., catching and grapping = doing? I'm not sure what you object to here.
Put the question differently: what is the Monster you've identified? Is it (as your long paragraph would seem to suggest) Theory? If so, according to your latest post, the doing, the grappling, and the producing of Theory will all be the same activity. I have no objection to your putting things this way (although I personally think that I grapple with Theory without being a theorist), or to your desire to make a joke about it.
My reference to stupidity proceeds from reading your post exactly as Matt does. Matt suggests (wrongly, I think, and in light of institutional practice, idiosyncratically) that given your catalog of contradictory elements, only a foolish or overly determined reader would see consistency among its parts. If that's not what you meant to suggest, as I suggested right off, I’m happy to retract.
As it happens, I read both your T1/T2 post and your Cover Charge post. I don't think either of them is actually inconsistent with the interpretation mentioned above. Your Cover Charge post suggests that people who criticize Theory without attending to the right-wing agenda providing their framework are unwise. Your T1/T2 post suggests that the distinction John proposes between theories and Theories often doesn’t hold in practice and that many critics of Theory are just in favor of naïve reading—and further suggests as its ultimate advice that we be wary of people seeking to smuggle a plea for naïve reading into their criticism of Theory. I’m glad that you acknowledge that your evidence here is only anecdotal, but would add only that those two posts highlight the ways critics of theory can be naïve, uncurious, and unwise. None of those qualities is quite the same as stupidity, of course. But those are several references to the intellectual limitations of the critics of Theory. They led me to read your “Breaking News” (with its apparently sardonic title) just as Matt does.
I'll be happy, though, to agree that you do not believe that critics of Theory are perforce naive, unwise, and (as CR suggests, aptly following Matt's line) carriers of a political virus. And my apologies for misunderstanding if that was not what you meant to say.
hum, thanks for your offer to take me to school. It's unnecessary. I have in fact read Butler and Derrida and am fully cognizant of their critique of the subject and of related complaints against the agent. Whether or not that argument is coherent (and there's reason to doubt that it is), the case can be made that the subject and the individual are not equivalent. (See another influence on Butler: Foucault, especially in his later work). Butler herself speaks of "a post-sovereign subject.” Who would that figure be? Who peforms the various performative resignifications dear to her theory? Those would be individuals.
I'll be happy to grant you that there's a lot to talk about here and perhaps my interpretation will ultimately seem wrong. That is, for the zillionth time, my point. Meaningful discussion can't be had when one party to a conversation is derided for being a vector of a political disease, or a naive servant of someone else's agenda, or an anti-intellectual. My reactions to Matt are generated in part by his unwillingness to grant this possibility and by his habit of flippantly mischaracterizing or ignoring claims he dislikes.
sean,
if you are "fully cognizant of derrida's critique of the subject" you are the only one.
but if you were you wouldn't really call it a "critique" would you? nor would you call it a "complaint against the agent"? nor would you be quite so quick in identifying the post-subject to come with the "figure" of the "individual"?
On a completely unrelated note, how about a show of hands from people wishing they held jobs that gave them the entire fucking summer off every year.
Hum, here is a sentence from ”Structure,Sign, and Play” referring to the effects of what is then called “free play”: “The absence of a center is here the absence of a subject and the absence of an author.” Earlier in the essay, Derrida specifically casts his work as the successful extension of the Nietzschean and Freudian, yes, “critique . . . of the subject.”
That poststructuralism in various guises poses a challenge to familiar accounts of agency is a commonplace of the critical literature. Here is Butler from The Psychic Life of Power asking what might be called a central question of her work: “how can it be that the subject, taken to be the condition for and instrument of agency, is at the same time the effect of subordination, understood as the deprivation of agency?”
Yes, there’s no obvious synonym for the “post-sovereign subject.” At the same time, the case can be made (and I’ll try to make it) that in Butler’s case implicitly, as in the late Foucault, the post-subject is effectively the individual. (Foucault, for example, a significant influence on Butler put an objection to the “government of individualization” at the center of his work and described the subject of his late writing as the work of “the self on the self.” In this light, if individual is unacceptable to you, perhaps “self” will do.) As it happens, this view is not unprecedented. You might consider the argument before dismissing it.
Oh god.
I'm a contributor to Theory's Empire. It's a shame (to my mind, if no one else's) that the editors only had room for half my essay on cultural studies. The other half makes the argument that cultural studies itself (and, I would argue, Theory as a whole, by which I mean the very narrow French-inflected Nietzschean and Heideggerian strain of thought that has dovetailed so smoothly with good old American libertarian impulses) is unwittingly underwriting the intrusion of naked market forces into the academy. As such it is allied, in a perverse way, with those who would like to see the downsizing of the humanities along with the consolidation and abolition of traditional departments. The full article can be found on Project Muse, if you're interested.
In other words, what I've been reading here--that Theory's Empire is some sort of anti-intellectual, conservative, capitalist enterprise born of resentment--is, to me, the world turned upside-down. I'd make the same charges against much of what is called Theory in the English-speaking world.
As for the insinuations of some kind of anti-semitism either behind the volume or underlying Sean McCann's posts about it: the charge is patently outrageous. As the atheistic son of a Jew, I find it deeply offensive.
The fact that, apparently, not one of those so loudly braying here has read more than the front and back covers of the anthology with a little skimming of the introductory material ought to be accompanied by a little humility. Instead, it's brandished like some sort of head on a pike while authorizing all manner of arrant and self-important chanting about what must be the motivations of the contributors and the editors, all of which is about as reactionary (since you're so concerned with such things) as one can get, not to mention appallingly anti-intellectual.
But since you're so interested in socio-economic critique, ask yourself this: what are the (market) conditions on your acquaintance with this thing you call "French Theory"? Given that most of you are monoglot, you are dependent on a publishing business that chooses what to translate almost entirely on the basis of the perceived market for it. And what this means, as a practical matter, is that what you know as "French Thought" is but a tiny, self-reproducing sliver of French intellectual life, one that died in France (along with its main practitioners) long ago. Only in the English-speaking world, especially America, is there such a thing as "French Theory." To the extent that it exists elsewhere (even in France) it has been reimported from the US (cf. for example, François Cusset's book called French Theory but which is written in French). Not coincidentally, the English-speaking world does a far poorer job (in terms of numbers of titles) translating the works of the rest of the world, including France, than do other countries.
One result of this is that the American "t
One result of this is that the American "theory" scene and its vision of the French contribution thereto are as eccentric in the terms of world scholarship as the Bush administration is in terms of world politics. Only in America (and, to a lesser extent, England) are intellectuals so obsessed with keeping the Nietzschean flame alive. Only in America are they desperately seeking more of the same, hunting out the most marginal French thinkers (Badiou anyone?) as fit for translation while the greatest thinkers of this generation (Vincent Descombes, Jean-Marie Schaeffer, Nathalie Heinich, Luc Boltanski, Jacques Bouveresse to name only a few) go largely untranslated. In other words, the claim made by Jodi Dean on her blog that "No wonder that thinkers whose language challenges us, whose concepts are like nothing we've ever encountered, will be held up for particular vilification" is false, at least as regards the French thinkers. Derrida and Foucault and Lacan and Lyotard and Deleuze and their latterday epigones are not "like nothing we've ever encountered," they are just like what you've already encountered and, apparently, you like it that way.
Beautifully said, Stephen, and dead on. Anyone with the remotest intellectual curiosity about these matters should read Stephen's essay. It is brilliant and unorthodox. Rare qualities.
Stephen; your righteous fury over Nietzscheanism in America - not just in academia, which I have nothing to do with - is something I sympathize with. But there is no need to peddle weird exaggerations. There appear to be more pages of Descombes in print in English now than in French. Boltanski is eccentric I grant you, how he wouldn't be classed as practising theory I cannot imagine, but Wacquant who teaches in the US is far more famous here. Greatness seems to have a political meaning for you based on this group. ' Bouveresse is well known in the anglophone world, very respected, hardly anything to shock. As for Badiou being obscure, I don't respect him myself but every one of his books is for sale at the Alice on my corner, which specializes in wine and BsDs. This cannot be said for any of your selection. Not only that, he is influential in mainstream publishing, as the careers he arranged for his protégés show.
the big guns you mention: their own confrontation with Nietzscheanism is specifically that. It does not absurdly package Nietzsche with Marx.
You are the first person to use the ridiculous term "French Theory" in this conversation. It appears to be something you are convinced exists, unlike those whom you accuse of championing it. Indeed you have arranged for it to have personnel, in which you place Deleuze beside Lyotard. You invent it because you need it for your polemic.
As for this romanticism of the Nietzsche free, 'French Theory' free conditions in France, here is one of your greatest minds' view of the situation after the Sokal affair:
"Je me permettrai de souligner ici à quel point je trouve ridicule et misérable la tendance qu'ont eue certaines des victimes de Sokal et Bricmont à jouer une fois de plus les persécutés et les martyrs, car tout le monde peut se rendre compte au premier coup d'oeil que ce n'est certainement pas en parlant du théorème de Gödel comme on devrait le faire, c'est-à-dire comme l'ont fait Gödel lui-même, Kreisel, van Heijenoort ou Dummett (tout cela est, comme on dit, beaucoup trop "anglo-saxon"), mais plutôt en en parlant comme l'ont fait Derrida, Lyotard, Serres, Julia Kristeva, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Debray et beaucoup d'autres, que l'on devient célèbre en France et réussit à faire parler de soi dans les journaux."
Things have not changed that much despite the deaths of the past few years. Debray of course is practically a government minister; he was tasked with the report on the Haitian reparations claim which the removal of the constitutional order put a stop to. That should give a measure of his prestige here.
Regarding McCann being accused of anti-semitism, it was something he made up as a kind of expressive dance.
Stephen, welcome! Thanks for stopping by.
Actually, both hum and myself, and more than a few regular readers here, including those who have for whatever reason refrained from commenting so far, speak and read more than one language only. How many do you speak?
I'm not sure I really understand who is this "you" you are addressing with this, well, comment of yours?
I certainly agree that careful translations into English are sorely lacking, all around.
Only in the English-speaking world, especially America, is there such a thing as "French Theory."
This may surprise you, but I've made that claim myself, only I noted that it extends to the word "theory" itself as well (as with the phrase, "doing theory"). This seems important to me, if one is to conjur everything that is bad about French theory-lite in America in the service of a dismissal toute courte of post-Heideggerian thought. Do you disagree?
I must say, you seem very comfortable to generalize violently about "us." As for your soundbite repetitions of Sean's false allegations and other sweeping claims, well, and with all due respect...maybe the less said the better, at this point.
Your comments are certainly very heartfelt. They also strike me as rather revealing--and please correct me if I'm wrong--of a certain not uncommon perspective as relates to the instituional politics of how French theory in America is taught, and yes, the claim about dovetailing with reactionary forces is not exactly unfamiliar. But to be honest that's not where my interest in these thinkers you seem comfortable to sweep together under one banner really lies, or stops, as I may have stated more than once, so I hope you forgive if I don't leap to a defense of that. As I've said before, I happen to think much of what is done in the name of "theory" in America is atrocious. But this seems to me a distinction all too easily lost in the venting going on here. Admittedly, we have been discussing, though sometimes tangentially and sometimes not, this particular anthology. Are there any particular points being raised that you wish to comment on? If not, thank you at least for sharing your perspective, or your perception.
I would be interested to read your article, were it available to me, but short of doing so any comments I make will only be provisional at best, as I've been happy to acknowledge all along, taking for granted at times that blogs are a strange medium, to be sure, but if you take them with a grain of salt I think they can still be productive, and I'd like to think this conversation hasn't been entirely unproductive in seeking to bridge some of these pretty enormous and rather polemically charged gaps.
I suspect others will wish to respond as well.
The fact that, apparently, not one of those so loudly braying here has read more than the front and back covers of the anthology with a little skimming of the introductory materi
(cont.)
with a little skimming of the introductory material ought to be accompanied by a little humility. Instead, it's brandished like some sort of head on a pike
Again, with all due respect, as I believe Rich pointed out above, a hefty sample of essays dealing with the anthology and quoting liberally are currently available free of charge at The Valve. I join him in suggesting everyone take a look, as I myself have not failed to do.
At some point during all this, one has to ask, why the vehemence of this debate, on both sides (to the extent that that division "Theory/Anti-Theory" is even useful, but really only one side seems to be raising this question at all, it seems to me). Why is it that those daring to voice a different, again, not uncommon view, spoken in various registers of indiffernce and concern about debates that are *not entirely new*, are seen as such a threat that they need to be shouted down at all costs? How might this relate to the "event-ness" of this book? How might it relate to an increasing passion over the alleged stakes of this descriptive and historical term, "postmodernism" itself? I acknowledge that you may have stopped reading by now. Still, I think these questions are important, and important to situate historically and to think critically about. I do not think such questions amount to mere "psychologizing" and I trust the difference can in some form be appreciated. None of the posts linked to above are merely knee-jerk reactions to this anthology or to the broader context in which these discussions are taking place. Please read them.
Matt, good questions. If the 'anti-theory' position is simply old, why bother with it? (And, this reminds me of a vital point you and Mark have raised--what does non-theory look like? practice, like hammering or quilting (although feminist theorists have argued that quilts are theory, a view I reject)? or science and formal logic? some kind of return to the immediacy of the text? or, more mildly, something that some might see as rigor, clarity, more specific claims? or, perhaps, a kind of depoliticizing of scholarship? (And, I would reject such a move insofar as I think that it would be political even as I think that the political claims for some specific articles, books, talks, etc are vastly overblown).
Anyway, why bother if the questions are old, what is our investment? My first reaction is something like: given all the external attacks on the university (funding, legislation), academics should not eat their own and attack posties yet again. Why not build alliances? Why be 'anti-theory' when one could make some positive, come up with a new theory, method, or approach that has the positive attributes one finds lacking in the present?
I don't think this gets very far--I'll keep thinking about your questions.
Thanks Jodi; I think Kenneth Rufo explores these questions beautifully, by the way.
Sean, that's all very interesting, the stuff about Butler et al and I agree with some of it. But that's not the sort of discussion that "you've" (pl) been having over on the valve, yr Derrida post aside.
Meaningful discussion can't be had when one party to a conversation is derided for being a vector of a political disease, or a naive servant of someone else's agenda, or an anti-intellectual.
Sure, you're right, but all I mean to say is that I don't have tons of time to muddle through the anti-political side of this argument, the art appreciation side. If we want to talk about Derrida's compatiblity with actually or potentially existing socialism, I'm all ears.
But in that case it seems to me, and I'll bet it'll seem to many of yr fellow Valve contributors, that we'd be "doing theory." Or do you not think so...
I'd love to hear yr proposal for a mode of literary criticism true to the establishment of socialism in our time...
And finally, to a bunch of you who've brought up the same point: do you really think that Derrida et al weren't aware of their potential or real instrumentalization, their complicity within the systems upon which they focused their critique? Are you sure that "theory," if there is such a thing, doesn't in effect begin with a self-consciousness about the projects of enlightenment, thought, modernization, and revolt? That attribute would come close to the top of my definitional statements re "theory."
I'd love to hear yr proposal for a mode of literary criticism true to the establishment of socialism in our time.
I'm curious as to why this is the standard you've chosen to bear? Also, I wonder if you haven't looked at Sean's Gumshoe America, because it is, to some extent, a defense of the New Deal liberalism (which, while not socialism per se, is the closest we've come to socialism in the States--programs against which many popular forms of writing (hard-boiled fiction in particular) undermined. I only say this because it's not as if theory alone can accomplish social amelioration.
Here's why 'socialism": "and almost no room for any aspect of state power (of any kind, socialist or otherwise) to pursue benevolent outcomes."
Well, and additionally, because socialism is the highest good, of course....
I only say this because it's not as if theory alone can accomplish social amelioration.
Of course not, not only theory... But let's hear what's better within our field.
And truth be told there are some of us who love New Deal Liberalism for what it is and (increasingly) was while hating it for what it blocked, negotiated out of existence... This is not a new stance on NDL... Traditional, really...
(Sorry - last one was me, of course...)
And by the way Sean, explain to me the incompatiblity between my infection metaphor and Matt's boldfaced assertion that we're not talking about motivation...
I don't disagree with the notion that there have always been critics of the New Deal, but I wonder why 1) socialism, so vaguely defined as it is here, is the highest good--and if you're being sarcastic and I've missed the point, the boat, and the whole damn ocean, my only excuse is that it's dense Wednesday here in Irvine--and 2) how you imagine theory, also vaguely defined, as having a necessary relation to the current political situation. In other words: what's better in our field for what?
"I wonder why 1) socialism, so vaguely defined as it is here, is the highest good"
Socialsim is the highest good because it is what humanity prefers and what allows for us to provide ourselves with the things we need to survive and flourish.
This wonderment accounts for your position very well. I assume you have not been persuaded by all the text you have consumed on this subject - derrida, deleuze, jameson, eagleton, marx, althusser, macherey, adorno, benjamin, fromme etc etc.. Possibly it is not something you can be persuaded of.
In which case it might be interesting to ask yourself if your objection to this common contention about socialism in much of what you condemn does not hint that your hostility is associated with a desire to thwart socialism and thwart the recognition of socialism as the highest good. If indeed your commitment is to the status quo, in ideology, literary studies, as well as in the context of their production.
CR can state plainly his criteria for the judgement of intellectual product - does it or does it not promote the advance of socialism? Can you do the same? Is there a reason beyond a pleasureable way to make your living that you chose intellectual production, and do you feel your work has any purpose beyond paying your bills?
God, you're an asshole. But, since you are anonymous, it's pretty much cost-free, isn't it?
Later, folks. Been nice chatting. Or, rather, it would have been if I hadn't been dealing fruitlessly with this sort of thing for 20 years. The labels change, but the dogma and argumentative strategy (such as it is) remain constant...
You know, I was once a Derridean. Went to SUNY Buffalo to study with Gasché, Sussman and Jacobs, as well as Andrzej Warminski. Then to Paris where I took courses with Derrida and Sarah Kofman. Then to Hopkins, where I studied with Neil Hertz and Werner Hamacher among many others. None of these people were intellectually bankrupt. Far from it. But among their students, many of them (and their own masters) were treated like gurus: unassailable Master Thinkers. The Master Thinkers did the thinking so that the students themselves didn't have to. With all the "radical" and "transgressive" questioning of "metaphysics" that was going on, nobody could be bothered--or even, apparently, see the point--in questioning anything but the finest fine points of the dogma itself. And anybody who had a different idea obviously "didn't know how to read" (a favorite insult among the de Manians).
This proud tradition continues. Carry on!
*Sigh*I am not anonymous. I do not confine you forcibly to using this haloscan as your sole sourse of information.
Thank you for listing your credentials. You appear to have gotten what you contend is a completely worthless education, persisted in it for a long time, for what reason is unclear.
The objects of your complaints are the usual fungible crowd of slavish dolts; the evidence for your originality of thought is your ability to recognize your own intellectual superiority to your competitors.
I'm not impressed.
Not anonymous? Please tell me your real name and institutional affiliation. Thank you.
There can be no clearer confirmation of what I say than the fact that you think that I must consider an education in which one does not adopt the teachings of one's Masters to be "completely worthless." I think no such thing, obviously.
Write to me privately and I will happily give you my name, address and phone number. And if you are ever in Paris, I will even take you to lunch.
If you mean to threaten me by asking for my institutional affiliation, sorry to tell you, I am what is euphemistically called 'an investor,' not an academic, and the only affiliations I have with institutions is as proprietor.
"if I hadn't been dealing fruitlessly with this sort of thing for 20 years"
That is an interesting way to characterize what appears to be the voluntary perpetuation of decades of collective kvetching about the feeblemindedness with which you have remarked your profession is rife.
Or were you fulfilling some sentence to community service with your latest contribution to this querelle?
alphonsevanworden@hotmail.com
I look forward to hearing from you. And your use of obscenities doesn't bother me, so feel free.
Guess I've got to spell it out for you: what is "fruitless" is arguing with intellectually bankrupt ideologues. All the more so when they are anonymous and mal élevés
(pour ne pas dire mal baisés). The people I studied with were not ideologues (most of them).
Theory as a whole, by which I mean the very narrow French-inflected Nietzschean and Heideggerian strain of thought that has dovetailed so smoothly with good old American libertarian impulses
Oh Good, so I can still have my Adorno, Benjamin, Lukacs, Jameson even?, Eagleton and Edward Said? How about Zizek - he's more than a bit infected by Lacan, I know, but there's Hegelian ballast on the other scale. It's a bit difficult to find somone who doesn't have some sort of Nietzchean or Heideggerian 'inflection' or strain, however, so I was wondering if yout might relax your criteria a bit. Oh, and can I have the French inflected ones who haven't 'dovetailed'with American libertarianism? Or if I can prove that some of them really don't, contrary to appearances, 'dovetail' at all, can they then be redeemed?
And Matt, it's not fair that your post got more comments than mine!
Thanks for the spelling lesson Mr. Schwartz. That's some hypercharming French you got going there.
Does this mean our lunch is off?
If the people you studied with were not ideologues, if you have found plently of colleagues whose work you respect, if you have a job and your career is in good order, what is your problem? Have you nothing more important to produce than negative advertising against the competition? Evidently you contend an education can be had for someone who wants it and has what you consider adequate intelligence. Why pick on those whom you feel are 'intellectually challenged'? Why not have a little charity, why so obsessed with minding their business? Are you one of these people who stops taxi drivers at airports and lectures them on how to pack a trunk?
What are you doing here on this haloscan? Why come spoiling for a fight with people you do not consider worthy opponents? Are you a sadist? An exhibitionist? Or are you just doing marketing for your book?
By the way, it would be nice if you would refrain from making the slimy move you and Sean like of holding others responsible for my comments and views.
Write to me privately and I will happily give you my name, address and phone number.
Still waiting for a response to my e-mail asking for precisely that information...
And, Mark, you can continue to have them all. I've never been much for the book-burning thing. My intention would never be to subtract but only to add.
But the "untheorized" "contextual" question remains: why America? Is it because America is so much more advanced than the rest of the world?
By the way, it would be nice if you would refrain from making the slimy move you and Sean like of holding others responsible for my comments and views.
I'm sorry. I obviously meant "mal élevée
(pour ne pas dire mal baisée)."
I am not male and plural, by the way, but I don't mean to give you a spelling lesson. Your offer of sexual services is generous, but neither necessary nor attractive, and your soft threat to provide them non-consensually doesn't frighten me; I can defend myself I'm sure, and there is always the big strong hubby to hand if you really feel you need to try to apply that cure for my ills.
Hm. I suspect that last comment may have been the lustmolch disguised as Stephen Adam Schwartz. The real SAS would seem the sort to consider that kind of thing beneath him.
since you are anonymous, it's pretty much cost-free, isn't it
And what is the 'cost' of not being anonymous? Is it 'accountability', and if so what does this mean in real terms?
Or it may be that the real SAS doesn't really speak French colloquially.
Anyway before anyone has a fit over this apparently obscene mysogynist threat, let us give him the benefit of the doubt.
Boy, for a guy who's all about the name, rank, and institutional affiliation, he sure is loose with his lips...
Hope all that doesn't end up on his permanent record...
Tsk tsk. Touchy aren't we. Surely you realize that this is a common expression in la douce France. Only someone entirely too literal minded and puritanical (in an American sort of way) would think that calling someone mal baisée is some sort of threat or offer or has anything to do with actual fucking.
Feel free to inform my employers of anything you like. Just be sure to mention that I prefaced it with "pour ne pas parler de." Now what was that that Derrida was saying about the police always waiting in the wings?
As for the benefits of remaining anonymous, it should be obvious that Alphonse and JC feel free to threaten me precisely because of their anonymity. What they don't realize is that it is just as liberating--indeed, more so--to post under one's own name.
Still waiting to learn Alphonse's real name....
Yes, but recall you did not call me mal baiséé at all. You called me, in your expert French, mal baisés. Which certainly suggests some odd perversion, or perhaps only casual familitarity with the language you are using.
You are not still waiting, you little fibber.
You can see a picture of my home, at a location you will easily recognize, here:
http://alphonsevanworden.blogspo...z-
alphonse.html
Molly Thomson (aka Alphonse de Mes Deux): to coin a phrase, you "don't know how to read." I never called you mal baisés which would be an appalling solecism. What I wrote was:
what is "fruitless" is arguing with intellectually bankrupt ideologues. All the more so when they are anonymous and mal élevés
(pour ne pas dire mal baisés).
Notice the pronoun ("they") to which the adjectives are attached. I am sure someone with your incredible mastery of French and English would agree that that sentence can be written no other way. You correctly then pointed out that I should not hold others responsible for your silliness. I agreed. My corrected statement would then have to read: d'autant plus qu'elle est anonyme et mal élevée (pour ne pas dire mal baisée).
And with that, I officially bring this pissing match to a close.
Be good!
Lustmolch SAS, my dear, you are winding yourself up. Was only teezing you. You don't have to explain the rules of mixing english and french in a sentence!
As you are in Paris right now, why don't you come on over? I have Gavi di Gavi and a Pouilly Fumé in the frigde, there is a little seafood buffet here and bona fide NY bagels.
Come on. No academics here, you won't have to do this to yourself.
Would love to, Molly. Honestly. But I've got a flight to Dublin to catch.
Bisous.
Maybe next time.
Stephen,
A quick question for you, regarding what you say above about monoglots, "french theory" "in" "america", and that you would "add" rather than "subtract".
The question: does theory's empire have one language? more than one?
let me say this in my language: plus d'une langue?
entendez! i just said "my language". let me translate for you:
"i have but one language -- but it is not mine."
vous l'entendez?
You know, I was once a Derridean. Went to SUNY Buffalo to study with Gasché, Sussman and Jacobs, as well as Andrzej Warminski. Then to Paris where I took courses with Derrida and Sarah Kofman. Then to Hopkins, where I studied with Neil Hertz and Werner Hamacher among many others. None of these people were intellectually bankrupt. Far from it. But among their students, many of them (and their own masters) were treated like gurus: unassailable Master Thinkers. The Master Thinkers did the thinking so that the students themselves didn't have to. With all the "radical" and "transgressive" questioning of "metaphysics" that was going on, nobody could be bothered--or even, apparently, see the point--in questioning anything but the finest fine points of the dogma itself. And anybody who had a different idea obviously "didn't know how to read" (a favorite insult among the de Manians).
This perspective, as well as its tone, interests me. Each time I encounter it, part of me wants to ask whether there isn't a natural effect of being too close to the stars to really see much of anything. It would seem that a lot of folks who were happy to become "disciples" were maybe most disciplined (if at all) to discipleship itself, and often lacked a necessary critical distance. Not all of them, but a lot. I think there are probably historical reasons for this as well. What I'm tempted to hear in the tone, and in the spirit of description more than argument (Deleuze speaks somewhere about the limits of such reasoned debate of philosophy, doesn't he?) is a kind of general anxiety about this thing generally travelling under the name of "postmodernism" (in addition, I suppose, to the familiar anxiety about an institutional status seemingly threatened). "Postmodernism" seems to me a more useful term than "Theory" insofar as it at least contains a reference to its own historicity (though not necessarily as fact). Postmodernism, you'll recall, is viewed as the greatest demon since Communism by quite a few people on both the right and the left, including everyone from conservative think tanks to Marxist theorists. In light of this, and with Mark's post in mind, it strikes me that a nuanced analysis of something far more complex (and indeed often contradictory) than some monolithic, dogmatic, hegemonic entity called (again, as a matter of translation incorrectly) "Theory" is what is called for now. But that's just me. No doubt some will continue to see only what they wish to see, and for some time yet.
Alph,
the IP address of one Stephen Schwartz has not changed throughout this thread.
Mark,
I'm so sorry! You deserved it, really.
Hum,
welcome back!
{the reader will no doubt have noticed that Matt at least has been in the jubilatory phase of mourning for this thread for some time now}
What's the significance of the fact that my IP address hasn't changed?
Do you think I'm lying about the flight I have to catch? I'll be out the door in 10 minutes and on my way to CDG. Here's the ticket information:
De / From : PARIS C.GAULLE 2F
A / To : DUBLIN
Vol / Flight : AF5008 opéré par/operated by CITYJET
Class : E
Date : 11Aug
Dep : 2040
Arr : 2135
Resa : OK
Heure limite d'enregistrement / Last Check-In time : 2010
Siege / Seat :
Max Bag : 20K
Resa : OK = confirmé/confirmed - RQ = liste d'attente/waiting list
Forgive me now, gotta go reread the end of "Limited, Inc." And I'll accept your humble apologies.
Stephen, I'm afraid I'll need a bit more proof than that before you get...my apologies.
Thanks for pissing on my page, all the same. A shame you couldn't be bothered to travel down a little further.
That first comment was a joke, of course.
The second wasn't.
I'm afraid I'm not in the business of providing you "proof" and I don't know who you think named you Chief Inquisitor.
I don't know what your last comment is supposed to mean.
I'll post from Ireland tonight just to prove your effrontery.
Is this what's meant by the "hermeneutics of suspicion"?
I'll post from Ireland tonight just to prove your effrontery
I'm sure you will, old chap, I'm sure you will.
For a more patient debate currently developing to include the question of what might be 'at stake' in such debates over whether Theory is an empire may I gently direct everyone and their mother's attention this-a-way. I would also kindly request that future commenters here do more than skim this thread for bits and pieces they wish to see before commenting, much less hurling insults. Thank you. There is also a discussion of Derrida's politics beginning here, for those who might be interested. -blog editor in chief]
Don't be too hard on that guy Matt. He's only doing his own pr, and he's not trained for the task. He's just trying to sell a book.
matt, please pardon me for submitting you to further euphoric mourning over this thread.
the questions you raise regarding master-disciple, teaching, the anxiety over knowledge in "(post)modernity" are well worth a long discussion. i notice that a related discussion is going on at long sunday.
it's quite funny that in the context of the judeo-christian history of such questions, stephen would use the word "guru"!?
i am not going to embark on such a discussion, though i would mention that derrida has addressed such questions constantly: the texts collected in "the right to philosophy", "the university without condition", the beginning of "cogito and madness, and elsewhere.
i'd simply like to offer a brief personal attestation of studying with "stars". i'm not going to flaunt academic creds. let's just say, i was fortunate enough to study with derrida.
what i can attest to is that in class it was never a matter of being wowed by a virtuoso or a master, but rather of being a witness to -- listening and learning -- the excersise of thought in its attempt to be just -- to the other. one also learnt something from derrida's unbelievable patience and generosity in seminar discussions, while answering questions. in many years, i do not recall a single curt or dismissive response to a question.
by the end of most sessions, most of us were exhausted but also buzzing with a million thoughts and questions, which made it imperative to meet friends, compare notes, then stay up all night reading and writing.
there was often laughter as well, as when he read aloud from 'finnegans wake' and many of us couldn't help but laugh and he joined in.
i'll stop. i hope i haven't been too indulgent in posting this.
This wonderment accounts for your position very well. I assume you have not been persuaded by all the text you have consumed on this subject - derrida, deleuze, jameson, eagleton, marx, althusser, macherey, adorno, benjamin, fromme etc etc.. Possibly it is not something you can be persuaded of.
I've never read any Fromme. Maybe that's the one that tips the balance?
On a serious note (and to partly clarify my response to CR): it's all well and good to talk about socialism being the end-all and be-all of political systems, but since non-violent revolution requires compromise, and compromise forces even the most earnest socialist to concede some planks of whichever visionary socialist platform he/she holds dear. Translation: the idealist will always have room to snipe the heels of the realist, and one can either recognize that and or continue to snipe away. While it's altogether gratifying to feel superior to those idealists who've chosen to live in the trenches (as was the case with the New Dealers) and compromise on some issues so that others could be covered, it's also an enfeebled position, both politically and intellectually, because it's 1) inefficacious and 2) so self-satisfying that it replaces political engagement with endless critiques, none of which are attended to by the people who actually make policy. Now, I could see some value to this: as I think about Jodi's essay, in which Zizek seems to be valued because he allows for avenues of thought outside the democratic/capitalistic structure, I begin to see the value in that, because without alternative avenues new ideas are hard to come by (i.e. socialism's transformed into the New Deal, so long as we ignore the long history of utopian and Christian socialist schemes in American history); then again, Zizek only offers the possibility of alternative, not actual ones, and that strikes me as both useful and intellectually lazy. In other words, nebulous alliegence to some vague concept of socialism as political telos is an attractive but, in the end, intellectually bankrupt position.
hum,
that account meshes with other ones I have heard, from former students of his. thank you for very much for sharing it. recalling Marco Roth's piece, it would seem he was also not incapable of riteous fury, at certain moments.
Scott,
I'm not sure I understand how you make the leap from articulating a necessary alternative vision to "intellectually bankrupt", but I think similar kinds of questions are currently being raised on Long Sunday.
More substantive perhaps, a commenter at Charlotte Street links to this event currently taking place. I skimmed the Ian Hunter essay, 'Giving Theory a History' and it looked like it might be something worthy of more discussion (you'll have to scroll down for the pdf link).
To answer seriously: it is doubtful than any of us have a real active role to play in the changing of the arrangements of property. We are a tiny tiny minority in a tiny tiny class, with influence however beyond our numbers but only when our forces are allied with reaction and power.
We can privately offer services to the agents of change, but that's all.
Academics can only have an active role in either obstructing social change - in assisting the accumulators - or in trying to interfere with the institutions they inhabit which are designed to help the accumulators obstruct the actions of everyone else with the production of ideology.
Look at your post.
Non-violent change is imaginable. You suggest however that the idea of change is inherently violent and needs a qualifier.
You imply that the status quo is in contrast non-violent. That change is not in itself geared toward the reduction, not the increase, of violence against humanity.
But the non violent maintenance of the status quo - non violent 'non change' - is not imaginable. It is strictly physically impossible. The status quo is fundamentally relations of violence.
So the whole question of violence, which you introduce as if it might threaten to come along with change, is a bit of ideology. Violence IS the status quo. No movement for social change, no prograqmme for it, could possibly produce the equal or increase the quantity of global violence presently inflicted, by the ordinary established relations obtaining, on humanity, and this is not counting the frequent intensifying spurts involved in the maintenance of the current arrangements against resistence.
Your formula, associating 'change' with 'violence' (wrongly), instead of the status quo with violence, is a product you make, according to a model you have learned, in an institution whose purpose is the making of this product - the illusion that social change is to be feared because of its likelihood to involve violence, and the twin illusion that the absence of change in our social and economic relations is a non-violent state.
How not to do this, how to refuse to produce this, is the question before academics.
So its basically a question of how most effectively not to obstruct the work of the agents of social change, how most effectively to refuse this role, how not to assist in the manufacture of consent for the massive daily violence inflicted on those even now in the process of attempting to change the relations of property and to resist accumulation.
This does not require of course the practise of what you call Theory. But much of what you do call Theory is not only not inimical to the goal of not obstructing but helpful.
Thinking that social change won't happen until Zizek comes up with a new way for academics to think is not tenable. The struggle is happening right now, every day. Empirical social science is evidently the most useful product to those undertaking the struggle at
his moment. But critical theory appears to be the best tool at present for the obstruction of the production of ideology for which the institutions are maintained by governments and capital. The worst of it is harmless because it is illegible. The best of it interferes with the ease with which such things as the association of social change with the threat of violence etc. is reproduced by professional intellectuals.
Matt,
"Intellectually bankrupt" was a poor choice of words on my part. I was applying it to the practice, not people (which I realize is non-standard usage). I meant "there's no value to such articulations," not "people who articulate thusly have no intellectual value." But you're right, the Hunter article (which John and Sean have been trying to jumpstart a discussion over) is interesting. Soon as I finish it, I may post and/or comment on it.
I would also kindly request that future commenters here do more than skim this thread for bits and pieces they wish to see before commenting, much less hurling insults.
Interesting. We're supposed to read this blog thread (honestly!) like it's scripture but you feel authorized in making all manner of pronunciamentos and conjecture about a book nobody here has read, not to mention speculating about my relations of "discipleship." Have you no sense of propriety, protocol or even good taste?
Just for the record: my complaint about the Derridean students I met was one about their slavish devotion (i.e., discipleship) to the teachings of the master and their unwillingness to seek any critical distance. So I don't see how anyone accuses me of having failed to have critical distance from them. I broke with those people and found better people to learn from.
I say that that situation still obtains, though the godheads are more numerous than they used to be. Derrida's seminar (as well as having seen him speak on numerous occasions) in my experience was not at all like what hum describes. It was filled with Americans, Germans and Japanese, all of them armed with tape recorders and hanging off of every word, laughing uproariously at the mildest witticism. The sycophancy was so thick you could've cut it with a cotton ball and not unlike what I imagine it must've been like to be around Bhagwan Rajneesh's followers at around the same time.
Want to prove me wrong about the discipleship thing? OK: tell me the most challenging critique of Derrida (or Foucault or what have you) that you've ever read, the one that really ought to make a true believer vacillate. Or, another test: name 5 or so such critiques. Not querelles de famille, mind, but critiques written by non-Derrideans. Or another: tell me something that you think Derrida is really wrong about and not because you want to replace some piece of the seamless doctrine with something you've gleaned from some other Master Theorist. Show me your critical distance. Not "Zizek is right on this [picayune] point and Derrida is wrong." But: "I don't agree with Derrida's view that X and here's why."
Derrida, by the way, is just an example. It could be Foucault, if you want, or another of the high priests...
The Derrideans I knew back in the day and, shockingly, even at present not only knew nothing of opposing or even alternate views (other than the pigeonholes like "Platonism" or "positivism" into which Derrida and admirers try to stuff everyone they don't agree with), they didn't want to know about them, which is probably why Mark Kaplan, posting above, wrongly assumed I wanted to take away his toys: that's what the Derrideans do with books they don't agree with: they don't burn them, but they sure don't read them. They didn't want to know and because they didn't want to know, they didn't have any answers to them other than a farrago of bluster, misunderstanding and accusations of "failure to read."
And that is my real objection to what goes under the name "Theory" in America: whether Nietzschean or not, it is all far too narrow in its perspective and overblown in its aims ("Western Metaphysics," indeed). By this I mean, Theory heads generally haven't even considered (even if only in order to reject them) alternative viewpoints, they are not conversant with them but that doesn't stop them from lumping them all together into whatever Derrida (or whoever) says they must be.
P.S. Where am I posting from now, Sherlock?
"OK: tell me the most challenging critique of Derrida (or Foucault or what have you)"
Well there are Eagleton, Moretti, Ginzburg, but they are elder statesmen and I suppose not what you meant.
Silvia Federici slices Foucault to ribbons, and is one among many in her field. The serious rejection of Foucault is found not in people who like you devote whole works to thinkers you remain unpersuaded by - for obvious reasons, a real critic of Foucault, someone with real objections, will direct the greater part of his efforts and attention to something more worthwhile than Foucault - but in works devoted to more constructive ends in the humanities, that is, documenting and explaining the history and product of humanity. It is the norm among the Marxist practitioners of history in the vein of Linebaugh.
With Derrida it's different because he not really read outside literature departments, where what is produced is normally books about literature dealing only secondarily with method. The strongest most devastating critique is in fact the near utter silence on Derrida in history, sociology and anthropolgy. This silence is not an indication of wholesale mindless acceptance but signals the absence of any influence or impact whatsoever.
I should know better by now, but I've added fuel to the fire on the Valve. I'd have trackbacked, but for some reason Matt's site refused the trackback. I can only suppose this is entirely intentional, a childish "spitting on us for our apostasy" move that he should really be above. Or it's a minor technical matter.
"Derrida's seminar (as well as having seen him speak on numerous occasions) in my experience was not at all like what hum describes. It was filled with Americans, Germans and Japanese, all of them armed with tape recorders and hanging off of every word, laughing uproariously at the mildest witticism." (stephen)
is there something wrong or bad about germans, japanese, americans, tape recorders, laughter, and trying to catch every word?
"the Derrideans I knew back in the day and, shockingly, even at present not only knew nothing of opposing or even alternate views ..."
reformed derridean -- whatever that means -- that you are sean, you might recall something of the logic of "opposition" no? it is interestingly shocking what happens if one does not want to go the route of opposition determined by the oppostion no?
as for having a "view of one's own", one scarcely has to be 'derridean' to have a lot of questions about that. "philosophically speaking" bien entendu. indeed, since you are rather obsessed with masters and gurus, and a 'view of one's own', could it be that you need one, or want to be one? just wondering you know, while you flash your academic creds.
'one's own'-- did you read matt's post below re blanchot and derrida. ploygolot that you are, how would you translate 'one's own' into another language, say french, or german, or japanese? or into your own? do you possess it? own it? one
must take ownership, is that it?
noone (re)forms oneself by oneself, but you are lucky enough to have found "better people". evidently 'people' who read derrida are lesser people for not having 'a view of one's own', but then again your view is not your own but comes from better people...
denn keiner tragt das leben allein
To be completely obnoxious, I will share a personal story. I only saw Derrida upclose once, in a restaurent at Stony Brook, in 1988 or 1989, I am not exact on the year. He came to do a mini-seminar and give a public lecture. The restaurent was rather expensive but I had a friend who was part of the wait staff. When she told me he was in the dining room, I peeked in and witnessed a tiff between him and his server - he seemed rather annoyed at the quality of the food and was sending it back. This brief encounter made a rather strong impression on me - he seemed like a jerk. Later my friend confirmed that the wait staff shared that view.
The fact that Derrida may or may not have been pompous, or that he was surrounded by psychofants, seems largely irrelavent to me. I am a critical admirer of his work, and have been from the beginning. Most philosophers that I studied with who took Derrida seriously (John Caputo, Robert Bernasconi, Len Lawlor, Walter Brogan) had some degree of critical distance. Unfortunately, many academic arguments get into pissing matches over whose guru is the coolest. The truth is, someone can be completely hypocritical, or narcissistic, and still offer great philosophic insight. The fact that people tend to look for the next great prophet really does not say anything about the quality of someone's thought.
almost forgot
I was lucky enough to also study with Ed Casey, who appropriated Derrida for his work in psychology, and David Allison, the translator of Speech and Phenomena. I mention Prof. Allison because he was both a great admirer of Derrida and very critical of the direction he took in the late 70's. He felt that the quality of Derrida's work had declined and that he may have been getting caught in the trappings of celebrity. This was at least Allison's view in the late 1980's. I only mention this to make the point that there are all types of perspective on a thinker, his work and his influence.
(reluctantly)
Stephen, the only reason I made the comment about your IP address was to reassure Alphonse that nobody was impersonating you, given her suspicions (which extend beyond the context of this scripture) and given the rather remarkable things you were saying.
Scott...(laughing) it's technical. I haven't read your post yet, but will.
Alphonse, quite a few people in philosophy departments read Derrida, and often read him much better than in English departments.
If I had to choose a list of greatest critics, mine would most certainly be a list of 'friends'. Genet, Nancy, Blanchot, Foucault, (Benjamin), Agamben, Lacoue-labarthe, etc. etc. I'm personally much more interested in the subtle criticisms passing from thinker to thinker, and among those who have taken the time to read each other with genuine care and a brave hospitality, than those who seem as if they can never quite get enough of vanquishing. There are certainly a whole lot of *bad* critiques of Derrida, or Foucuault, or whoever, but of course that doesn't mean there aren't some worthwhile, coldly oppositional ones as well (just to be clear, I think a certain kind of sober coldness--in contrast to the sychophants's droolings, of which there are too many--is often both valid and necessary.) I could probably be much more aware than I currently am of such critiques. This is true. Especially as I haven't been trained in analytic philosophy much at all. If there is a particular article containing such a worthy oppositional perspective, one that you think would be a useful place to begin, Stephen, then I am open to it. In fact, I am all ears.
Thanks to everyone, including the so-called "assholes", who have shared so much during the last half of this thread, even if its original question remains unanswered.
Let us pray.
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve..._it_right/
#3407
I've never heard that Derrida was a jerk. The idea that he was 'snooty' is just bizarre considering where he dined in Paris (the worst cafe ever simply because it had 'lac' encoded into its name).
Oh, John Milbank's critique of Derrida is pretty convincing in some respects. I'm sure you haven't heard of him though.
Matt: philosophy, sure, but I am not persuaded this is not a literature department! Philosophy only exists because there are fine imaginitive writers who have no talent for plot and know it.
The first time I heard JD speak, he spoke in English, reading from notes; I was a slip of a girl, and for twenty minutes I thought he was talking about 'allegri.'
At the party afterward, I was standing with my friend, who had slipped out in the middle of the lecture and returned toward the end. He came up and tugged the back her shirt and said ' Ah, I know what you were doing and I'm not insulted.' The label of her shirt was showing; she had slipped out for hanky panky and not realized she's put her shirt back on inside out.
There is more to the story, but I am sure I won't tell.
If he'll indulge me, I'll agree with Anthony: every time I met Derrida--one time's recounted here--he was incredibly gracious, generous, and interested in what a little shit like me (and at the time, I was nothing more than a little shit) had to say. I can't speak to other people's experiences, only conjecture that maybe by the time he got to Irvine he had "settled down" or something?
Oh and. It seems in the aftermath of this ball, there is confusion about the tone of mal baisé. Of course The Schwartz was not threatening me. As any clever reader will detect, the operaion above is called mockery, and the object is the outrage and 'freewheeling hyperbolic interpretation' Schwartz and McCann were engaging in over nonexistent charges of antisemitism using my quotation of Wagner's Judaism In Music as a flimsy pretext to dismiss everyone here - not only me, but everyone else by assocation - as 'beneath contempt.' The term mal baisé could about as legitimately be construed as a menacing or vilely contemptuous bit of misogyny as my quotation of Wagner could be construed as a in indictment of the Discerning Consumers as antisemites.
It's so not funny when one has to explain it, but I wouldn't wish to leave anyone with the wrong idea of the expression.
Cover Design of Theory's Empire
In case anyone is still interested, the actual cover of TE is the third design Columbia UP prepared. The first was a dark, disturbing photo of an open book nailed down by big iron bars. It was bluish-brown-black and very grim, and both Will and I thought the design suggested sadomasochism and was too dramatic (to put it mildly) for our book. Maybe one should or could accuse Theory of being sadistic, and its practitioners of being masochists, but we hadn't actually made that argument, and so were very unhappy with that design -- though it was certainly striking and eye-catching.
The second design was a kind of mousetrap contraption, and neither Will nor I could understand what it was supposed to mean. Everyone agreed it wouldn't work.
By the time the third design was submitted (and we were very appreciative throughout of CUP's willingness to consider our reactions; not all publishers treat their authors that well), time was running out. We thought the design was striking, appropriate enough, and attractive, and happily accepted it after a bit of quibbling about the colors. That's the story.
DP
'appropriate enough' in the sense that it gave the gist of the books thesis (or where the book was coming from?? Or at least that it didn't misrepresent where the book was coming from?
Very late to the debate, but added nonetheless (perhaps this will help spare some of the more telling comments recorded here from Haloscan's proclivities towards erasure). Rich writes above:
If you had argued "I think that the Theory's Empire introduction sometimes mocks The Norton" I would agree with you. But, you know, having the introduction of one anthology mock another is transgressive, performative, self-referential, a dissent from the master narrative and all that, it is not a jealous fury or a deliberate counter-attack. At worst, it does the exact same thing that you've done: it treats an anthology as if it symbolizes a larger entity.
Rich Puchalsky | 08.10.05 - 11:31 am | #
Insofar as this anthology quite consciously (if not entirely forthrightly or self-consciously) finds itself already within a genre (Against Theory 1995, PC Wars 1995, After Theory, etc. etc.), that is, insofar as it arrives already referencing a certain discourse (one whose roots are undeniably to be found in the continuing, in fact strengthening backlash to an entire 'PC' era, that which was opened up and to some degreee institutionalized in the wake of the social, cultural and political upheavals of the 1960s, it does indeed symbolize a larger entity. Which is not to take sides in any overly simplistic manner, but merely to point out, yet again, the inescapable significance of context. This anthology announces its arrival in no uncertain terms, and proceeds to give itself the license for all sorts of leaps, many of them done before, all the while claiming to be doing something radically new and unassailable. The book also exists as an entity shaped by the deliberate negotiation of various market and popular forces and paratexts, which are by no means by themselves entirely irrelevant. (Why must the Anglo's always insist that paratexts do not argue? They do!) The vision of those terms contained in such announcements is well worth complicating, and one needn't read every single essay in order to do so. One need only have some knowledge of the relevant subjects and contexts, in order to raise significant questions about the treatment of said subjects and contexts. Again, the specific rebuttals have taken place elsewhere. See the posts linked above.
Contrary to what Sean McCann says above in one of his first comments, introducing an analysis of context does not "rob the writer of the chance to be responsible for what she says"
On the contrary, it seeks to address a fuller meaning of responsibility, precisely as it more deeply questions what defines responsibility.
http://www.bookish.dk/index.php?p=728
Very nice template and information here! 
#3q air ionic purifier#
Commenting by HaloScan
